President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Right, with you guys it's always "they were great ideas, just implemented badly". The problem is, every time they've been implemented, it's been badly, there is not one example of them being implemented well. So, maybe not such great ideas after all?
no, they definitely worked. sorry that your guys lost WW2 to the commies.
just saying that in a vacuum, this isn't the pwnge you think it is - maybe it is, i don't think the current admin is at all competent, just that this could be a desired feature and not a bug
I agree. I don’t think this administration has any level of competency. It is just chaos all the time.
Ok, ok, it would be a great place if not for the big bad USA#1. Being ruled by a repressive and violent regime doesn't have anything to do with it.
Why do we have to choose between:
American sanctions did significant harm to the Cuban economy.
AND
The Cuban government under Castro was repressive.
Both things seem obviously true.
Ok, ok, it would be a great place if not for the big bad USA#1. Being ruled by a repressive and violent regime doesn't have anything to do with it.
Yes indeed it is deleterious to a small country's chances for prosperity when the most powerful economy and military in Earth's history is doing all it can to crush it (short of full-scale invasion)
And SPEAKING of repressive and violent regimes, you have to look at... the United States. How aware are you of all of the repression and violence we have heaped upon Central and South America*?
*and that's just keeping it to the Western Hemisphere
heh, with all the apologetics going on it IS easy to forget the historically accepted fact that it was the Soviets who truly crushed the Nazis
Soviet role in WW2 obviously was enormous, but does anyone think that the Allies victory in WWII was mainly attributable to the system of government in the Soviet Union?
Why do we have to choose between:
American sanctions did significant harm to the Cuban economy.
AND
The Cuban government under Castro was repressive.
Both things seem obviously true.
Well, a more cynical man than I might suggest that it's because if it weren't for the sophisticated "oh look, a squirrel eating a sanction!" strategy of argumentation, we might all notice that communism doesn't and has never worked for myriad reasons.
Why do we have to choose between:
American sanctions did significant harm to the Cuban economy.
AND
The Cuban government under Castro was repressive.
Both things seem obviously true.
Karl seemed to be implying that Cuba would be a paradise without the sanctions. I suggest it would not be.
heh, with all the apologetics going on it IS easy to forget the historically accepted fact that it was the Soviets who truly crushed the Nazis
Pro tip: Having that propaganda-mainlining moron on your side is not helping your case. At all.
If communists are right, sactions by capitalist countries cannot be detrimental, because there is nothing good in capitalism so having no trade with capitalist countries is necessarily a positive, not a negative.
It cannot be considered punishment to embargo a communist country, definitionally. It's what they claim is good
I don't think that was good, either. Good thing I don't have the worldview of a 7-year-old where places, people and things are either ALL GOOD or ALL BAD.
Can you please read some stuff about how the U.S. intentionally and with malice obliterated this small island nation's economy before posting again on the matter? You seem highly uninformed.
Right. I'm saying communism is bad primarily because it always results in repressive, totalitarian dictatorships as well as ****ed up economies and you keep trying to distract me by shiting on about sanctions while ignoring the other part, like I'm 7.
Or maybe like you are 7 if you actually believe your own bullshit and managed to distract yourself while you were at it.
Why do we have to choose between:
American sanctions did significant harm to the Cuban economy.
AND
The Cuban government under Castro was repressive.
Both things seem obviously true.
I think both things are true, but there's a significant causal link from thing 1 to thing 2. Poverty is the most fertile breeding ground possible for social and political ills.
Soviet role in WW2 obviously was enormous, but does anyone think that the Allies victory in WWII was mainly attributable to the system of government in the Soviet Union?
"mainly attributable to the system of government"; I'm not sure who is saying that. I certainly wasn't making that argument. I'm just stating the historical consensus (albeit oft ignored) that the Soviets crushed the Nazis on the Eastern Front.
in any case, I've already spent way too much time on here today, I'll be back to annoy you all tonight or tomorrow
Soviet role in WW2 obviously was enormous, but does anyone think that the Allies victory in WWII was mainly attributable to the system of government in the Soviet Union?
It may have helped them produce a lot of tanks, planes and munitions quickly, but the US did even better. And the Soviets required massive shipments from the West (including the hard-pressed UK), not the other way round. And Speer considered that the Red Army only succeeded because of the vast diversion of German resources from the Eastern Front into air defence, caused by the British bomber offensive even before the Americans weighed in. By early 1943 there was more German manpower, with more weaponry, aircraft and materiel, fighting the RAF bombers than fighting the Red Army.
At least people can leave if they don't like it. And they just generally don't have that whole, you know, totalitarian dictatorship / secret police thing to contend with.
I'm not sure your average guy in Haiti has the ability to pick up and leave.
For a fair comparison you'd have to turn back the clock, apply crippling sanctions to, let's say, Bermuda for a few decades and see if it's a better place to live than Cuba. imo it's not totally obvious that the capitalist nations outperform Cuba.
heh, with all the apologetics going on it IS easy to forget the historically accepted fact that it was the Soviets who truly crushed the Nazis
...after teaming up with the Nazis to carve up Eastern Europe.
I'm not sure your average guy in Haiti has the ability to pick up and leave.
For a fair comparison you'd have to turn back the clock, apply crippling sanctions to, let's say, Bermuda for a few decades and see if it's a better place to live than Cuba. imo it's not totally obvious that the capitalist nations outperform Cuba.
I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant by "can".
I'm not sure your average guy in Haiti has the ability to pick up and leave.
For a fair comparison you'd have to turn back the clock, apply crippling sanctions to, let's say, Bermuda for a few decades and see if it's a better place to live than Cuba. imo it's not totally obvious that the capitalist nations outperform Cuba.
You have to account for URSS money and fossil fuel as well though
I think the Nordic system should be and probably will become the go to future system, assuming the world doesn't get ripped apart before then, as the main global model.
I mean it strikes a nice balance between capitalism and social welfare.
tax funded healthcare
free education
private businesses
strong labor unions
progressive taxation
High GDP
And in actual practice, the system works, people are happier and more educated and safer.
The nordic model could theoretically shift towards Marxism, and if there is an argument for why that would be better than that Nordic system, Id be interested in hearing it. But I think the anti west anti capitalism angle of it, lends to its favorability far more than specific economic and social workings of the system itself.
Germany , France, Austria and Italy have very similar approaches to pensions, healthcare, education, yet they perform far worse.
fiscal revenue as a % of GDP is very similar to Scandinavia as well.
meanwhile Switzerland has almost half the fiscal revenue as a % OF GDP yet it's better than everywhere else on every relevant metric, except Norway, but Norway has massive oil and gas resources on top of similarly high human capital.
unclear why we have to pretend Denmark has more success than Switzerland.
Denmark is a decent place, Switzerland is even better.
so why denying Switzerland exists proving beyond reasonable doubt you can achieve incredible results in society with 25% of GDP on fiscal revenue instead of 50?
What would stop the high iq people from simply voting to take rights away from the low IQ people?
Democracy only works if the lowest common denominator is moral enough that the wisdom of the crowds can kick in. The hope is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I do believe that the benefits of disenfranchisement are outweighed by the drawbacks.
Meritocracy is ridiculously easy to corrupt, because a very small group of people would get to decide which slightly larger group of people gets to decide everything. It doesn't take a genius to predict how that pans out.
Which, somewhat ironically, makes meritocracy a very stupid idea.
Soviet role in WW2 obviously was enormous, but does anyone think that the Allies victory in WWII was mainly attributable to the system of government in the Soviet Union?
If the "allies" had done like the Soviet Union did in 1939 to 1941, Nazi Germany might very well have existed today.
