Trump Supporter

Well, yes. It can be countered, Random, by illusion of power motive in his case. He is under the rhetoric a Wisard, of the type found only if we follow the yellow brick road carefully. He is hidden, the taxes, his bancropties pointing to reliance on tagging his brand, suppositions of branding as opposed to owning the equity underneath, conflicting statement emissions fluctuating tweet by tweet, sleeping with presumptive bad fellows, centering rather then liquiditating his center, drawing power from ill informed constituency, grabbing vaginas and other ass-ets, calling reactionary revisionist tunes, the old school of memory laden but irretrievable top 40 thecure all of make America Great Again.

Let’s face it, America had its heyday in the first half of the 20th century, where run away gross Capitalism went unchallenged , met its Communit ideological challenge and won-seeing that as proof of it’s superiority.

But what really happened was the gains of the first half, as immense as they were, gradually eroded, and the idea of the dire Capitalism-Colonialism as the villifying power motive left after the diminution of the other two parts of the scepter-Fascism and Communism- left an ideological vacuum.

Now who best fill the enormous vacuum? Or rather What ideology?

That is the question, and Trump is only an emergency fill, rhetoric to end all rhetorics, based on a gross illusion only a Wizard can conjure.

It takes a Trump to make believe that this really is not the long way around, not the direct way to navigate into the heart of the cataclysmic darkness which is the NWO, all roads leading to ROME, the eternal city, where really it is conceivable that the sUoreme Pontiff, come push to shove, will remain as the only credible center.

The initial stage of this dissection between the new reich’s Angela and the Donald, can already be seen in an obvious handwriting on the wall, where Angela declares that if the US isolationism looses some Asian Markets, well, EU certainly will not hesitate to take advantage of a missed opportunity, and take up the slack. She’d be a fool not to, after all, much is at stake here, so much, that it dwarves prior superpower affairs.

If this line of reasoning is carried to its limit, then it becomes obvious that the new ideology is based on a hope of required hopes, engendered and simulated in a post modern yet absurd hocus pocus.

every counter has another counter. For every attack, there is a counterattack, every counterattack, another counterattack and thus a counterattack until it becomes blurred movement of counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter, repetitively.

every bankruptcy of Trumps was a legitimate counter to to attempts to ruin and diminish his business.

I would wager that those three bankruptcies of his that he filed were before the laws were changed; before the changing of those laws, you could file for bankruptcy and not be out anything, preserve your fortunes. There are many illegitimate business tactics in the world and just because Trump made use of one to preserve his business empire; in fact used it three times; might only be a successful counter against tactics that were far more illegitimate and the fact further persists that since the loophole was accepted as legitimate before the law was changed by the fact that bankruptcy law was changed, it was thus considered a very legitimate move.

If by ‘conflicting statement emissions fluctuating tweet by tweet,’ you mean that Trump has given conflicting statements through social media that has made it hard for so many ‘followers’ to get a bead on his business plans or how he conducts himself, I would call that another legitimate tactic that again preserves his business and protects it from those that would tear it to pieces.

‘Sleeping with presumptive bad fellows’. ‘Presumptive’ being the operative term. Is it not also common knowledge and practice to keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

If his true constituency is not ill-informed, but the ill-informed has greater power to give and yet are barbaric, twisted, performing bad business practice after bad business practice, is it bad business practice to leave them ill-informed, to draw their power from them and not just preserve his own business empire, but those of other legitimate businesses world-wide? That, too, is the mark of leadership.

Trump, for all his vagina grabbing and seizing of ass-ets, has still made it into the white house. I had marveled over peoples ability to focus more on the Monica Lewinski scandal of Bill Clinton’s Presidency rather than his reducing the national debt close to getting it back in the green instead of the red, but I’ve since realized that that in itself, while a form of good money management, would have ruined America’s ability to continued business with the rest of the world that hates our arrogant asses and loves the loaded gun to their heads at times because they love us all the same. Having an ‘office pop’ like Monica Lewinski has been considered politically sound since the days of Jack the Ripper back in the 1880’s. In fact, it is one of my ongoing and yet to be disproven theories that Jack the Ripper himself was a political-killer-for-hire to cover up the affairs of politicians by killing their ‘whores’. His disappearance from the London theme in 1888 coincided greatly with the emergence of American Politics in the world, a world he would not have been safe in even then as those who hired him in London would have wanted a tying up of loose ends. Which, greatly also coincided with the emergence of western culture in America and my belief that the cultured intellectual behind the namesake of Jack the Ripper departed as far west into America as he could; a feat that was followed up on nearly 2 centuries later by german immigrants fleeing with jewish sympathizers into the western culture of America with the bloodline of Hitler, which I have theorized to have been synonymous with the bloodline of Jesus Christ. However, the point that I’m making, is that too much has been the focus on sexual harassment that people have not been able to flirt at all without fear of legal reprisal; that our modern culture is starting to drain for romance being, now, almost synonymous with stalking and creeper-status and our ‘American Family Values’ of a man and woman and two children, a boy and a girl, is not as realistic as a vision as we’d like and has been needing an upgrade since before the nuclear wars began.

Trump and Hilary both knew they could say and do whatever the hell they wanted to in the running for presidency and that it wouldn’t matter; which was great because they weren’t in control of all of the shit that came out of their mouths, which coincides with emerging concepts of mass-consciousness and synchronicity and mass-media and it’s viewing audiences and the energies that are circulating.

Both Hilary and Trump were caught in old arguments they didn’t believe in again, a constantly shifting flux of energy and other thought processes and this, if you paid attention much at all to their presidential runs and their media representations, caused a very inconsistent theme in both platforms that can only be deemed as ‘insane’ by any sane viewer. And yet, both are still completely sane and sound of mental health.

Trump is far more than an emergency fill. I could give credible evidence to support this, citing his show ‘The Apprentice’, citing his parents, who have come from money and left him with money; citing Doonesbury comics that while comic and not to be taken fully seriously, do show trump to have been rubbing elbows with politics since the days of George Bush Sr., at the very least and probably before then as well.

I can guarantee that in any conversation or debate on the subject, I can prove Trump to be far more knowledgeable, far more of a better fit for the position and that it is, by all means, a step down in term of power and wealth around the world for him to be filling the presidential role he now fills for America.

The pm system is an option.

Feel free to pm me long, well thought out argument for your views anytime. Really put your heart and soul into it.

Yes, I’ve had many incarnations on this forum.

You can’t socialize everything I would argue which is why socialism as a political organization fails. I no longer go by the Joker. I’ve retired the Joker in that some of my views have changed.

My views are always changing as I like to see myself as evolving in my thinking.

I always welcome a debate of course.

Don’t et different incarnations shame You into idiocy Merlin. It is the sign of these sorry times. Rather, let those, who imbibe a seemingly particularly distinct view bedazzle their own lack of proper, or, otherwise rick solid foundation.

That is quite passé, I am afraid. The thing is, mainstream doesent distinguis isms any more, basically because, the dead is no longer different DWP from the living. Communism has imploded more than a generation ago, and it takes to live it to know it.

Hi. :slight_smile:

Communism isn’t dead.

Hi, too! I would say it is, except maybe in the so called ‘Hermit Kingdom’, everywhelse where there still is an aftertaste for it, it presents a hybrid quality.

What’s “communism” to you ?

Communism to me begs on its meaning, at least that’s the implication of the question. Whenever someone requests in general terms what communism is to any one, it refers that to nominal meaning, rather than a generic description of , for instance, how it works. Descriptions are more cross interdisciplinary, cultural, and functional. These latter, rely on checking other sources. Therefore,to my mind, it would be inconvenient to assume a communism which is nowadays is other than merely an ideological construction. Ideology and practice are no longer other than approximate confirmation of each other, like let’s say displaying functional and conceptual correlates, mirroring the idea with its application.

The application of an ideology has to be compared with a schematic possibility with its functional equivalent, where verification is more likely start with presentations of examples of what communism entails and re-presenting them in various modes of workable current types of political and social manifest. The ideology in its pure form, is a an ideal model, from which an nominal meaning can be abstracted.

I can not present communism, apart from its previous models, and alternatively, therefore, such a presentation will suffer from an other then present construction. It is therefore a re-construction, a hybrid. Such a hybrid begs its evolutionary prescription, as presented by the hytoric development starting from Hegel, through, Kant, Marx, Engels and so on.

Meaning is not developmental, but so is a topical presentation apart from its development. In that sense, Communism is dead, since it can not presently connect to any former presentation. It is merely a hypothetical re-presentation, using mixtures of different social contracts with their revious uses.

This is why variance is an essential part of what communism is, as can be understood in the manyformed descriptions via how they worked. China has always differed from its Russian Counterpart, and the French Communist Party supported by Sartre, broke away from the International Communism, at a time when reassessment and revision took hold because of the breakdown of political differences among the members of the Internationale. It was an ideology, simply presented , at a time when fractures did not yet appear. With the coming of differences, an exact literal reference to held sources became inapplicable in the present future and the future perfect senses. History had to be re lived, of which Marx had warned, and as such it had to be re-lived point by point in the present tense, having little experimental reference apart from the internationally adopted sense to which early communism could refer.

Therefore, I can not present to you a sense in which communism applies a modicum of my own personal experience, except by which it presents in reference to current nations or academics, still holding on to the idea. That this is a very poor way it can be understood, is evident in the current swirling opinions which hold on to a modicum or relevance. Most will just throw up their hands and declare it unworkable.

It failed even as a social experiment in the 60’s, where most communes disintegrated, or ended in catastrophe. With these arguments in mind, I have really no recourse to insist that the idea had only short, limited appeal for strictly pseudo ideological reasons.

As long as there is capitalism (techno-creditism), there is communism (egalitarianism) too. Their “Synthesis” (cp. Hegel) is globalism or “humanitarianism” where communism and/or capitalism are/is not gone, but merely “aufgehoben” (Hegel).

Maybe we should try to continue this conservaion in the following thread, Jerkey.

Hi, Arminius,

I agree to that, but at the same time, that would indicate a sort of irrelevance of the present topic to one, whose main thesis has been seen as of yet unfocused by Uccisore. Therefore maybe it is premature to not to include this present diversion as not relevant, and it may be ok to go on with it, maybe until further clarification is introduced, while at the same time, pursue Your suggested link as a way to proceed.

Perhaps Carleas, who has agreed to judge over this forum could add further insight into the way to proceed.

In theory, this forum is just for lining up the details for a debate. If you and Arminius/Alf would like to debate communism, we could set that up. Just need to figure out the format (standard is something like 5 posts each, 250 words or so), judges, who goes first, and, of course, a clearly expressed question for debate --could be just arguing for/against the statement “Communism isn’t dead”, but could also be some narrower point of disagreement that comes out of the discussion in the thread Arminius linked to.

Though I said I would earlier in this thread, I don’t really have time to judge a debate right now, but I’m sure we could find someone who could judge, or we could do a non-judged debate, with or without vote buttons in the discussion.

Let me know what you want to do.

Thanks, Carleas. I am open to any and all forms to pursue the more specific debate on Trump, or the more general dialogue relating to Communism and Capitalism. I would like to see all threads relevant to both points of view retained, while maintaining the
one and leaning toward a unified grasp of what they entail.

Sorry You can not judge, if judging is what Arminius and i agree upon. In the case that a judgement is
deemed appropriate,
then be it that.

Arminius,

I think it would only be fair, to agree, first of all, to
the idea of debate including Your link on
Communism, since a mindset occurred perhaps both: first, the introductive similarity to how Trumpism relates to the general framework of ideological
differences, particularly as itcould go deeper into the
very essence of those differences via related it to the ideas presented in Your own suggested link, with which I am not familiar to the extent, that I could use
it without reading it carefully.

What do You think?

As far as Your quote on Hegel, yes the quality of the synthesis befits a newer version, however, this changes most noticeably with Marx, who replaces spirit with a material manifestation. This is probably retrograde, toward the direction of earlier more concrete conflict resolution, for the sake of the proletariat. For to attempt a quest toward a view society is more prone to accept more literally the
idea, is perhaps to his (Marx) credit.

Marx was a Links-Hegelianer (Left-Hegelian). He turned many parts of Hegel’s conception upside down - so, for example, Marx said “das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein” (“the Sein [being] determines the consciousness”), which was just the opposite of what Hegel had said before him: “das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Sein” (“the consciousness determines the Sein [being]”).

The reason why I am saying that “communism is not dead” has to do with Hegel’s Dialektik, which is - by the way - not turned upside down by Marx. So we do not have to consider Hegel and Marx separately in this case. I think this is well considered in the thread I linked to. So I would prefer to continue the discussion in that said thread.

I support trump only cause the poor bastard stepped into a straitjacket and I kinda have to support him the same as I kinda have to be an american. Didn’t have much of a choice. All of a sudden it was like, ahhhhh, this guy, gotta support this guy whether I like it or not. Why? Well shit, just another poor bloke like meself stuck in a bad spot. Couldn’t help but feel for the little guy, ya know?

Fair enough yet a debate stylistically more a mirror of a Dialectic. But perhaps, Trump lacking an ideological groumd, such would be , an exploration using hypothetical arguments based on revised information, not that such am endeavor could not mirror a close approximation.

Sorry , the above was meant for Arminius

Yes but he placed himself there, it was not as though someone placed a gun at his head.

Can you honestly say that we place ourselves in places? On our own?