Troll level 1 million reached

"davedave1111" (davedave1111) 12/11/2015 at 15:37 • Filed to: None

0

16

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The article’s fair enough, but that headline is epic trolling.

crowmolly > davedave1111 12/11/2015 at 15:46

0

A part of me is convinced that Trump is running a false flag.

davedave1111 > crowmolly 12/11/2015 at 15:48

5

I’m still holding onto the hope that Trump will turn out to have been on a massive wind-up the whole time. It’s a slim hope, but honestly, it’s hard to see that he’s not in it for the shits and giggles. I mean, it’s almost like he’s working his way down a list of the things he could say which focus groups picked out as the most offensive - and it’s not like he doesn’t have the kind of financial power to consult focus groups, so he must be doing it on purpose.

crowmolly > davedave1111 12/11/2015 at 15:49

3

At this point Kuato could burst out of his fucking stomach and I wouldn’t bat an eye.

Sam > davedave1111 12/11/2015 at 15:50

5

I keep saying that it almost seems like he's a parody of a candidate. It's like a politician that you'd see on Family Guy or the Simpsons.

davedave1111 > crowmolly 12/11/2015 at 15:50

0

And, it wouldn’t be any more repellent than he already is.

d15b > davedave1111 12/11/2015 at 15:58

1

If that is the case, he must be having the time of his life.

PS9 > davedave1111 12/11/2015 at 16:38

1

But from an economic point of view, which is the point of view that we take around here in this little part of this site, he just isn’t left wing enough to be a Fascist.

Ok, but...

The definitions of fascism tend to lie in the authoritarian and nationalist nature of the polity, not the economics.

You have to be a left winger to be a fascist, because fascism is ‘left wing economic policy’...only it isn’t, because it is defined by the ‘nature of the polity, not the economics’. What?

advocating economic ideas similar to those of the fascists does not make you a fascist.

Wait a minute...didn’t you just say that Trump cannot be fascist because only left wingers can do that? And we know who the fascists are by looking at their economic ideas? What is the meaning of saying, ‘that sounds like fascism’ if your going to say, ‘but, I mean, that doesn’t mean it is ...’ right after that?

But it is still true that the progressive movement is closer to those economic views than any other current day one.

Oh. I see what is happening here. ‘Fascism’ is a football in this article. Kick it around wherever you want. It looks bad for a republican to carry the football, so just kick it away from him and say republicans can’t actually do that. It would be better your political enemies had it instead, so just say that they’ve always had it. But wait, some of them are wealthy and actually read Forbes and they might not like that. So just kick it in their general direction while saying, ‘I mean, you don’t have to pick it up. You’re most likely to more than anyone else, but that’s only because of how close to it you are(while having nothing to do with it whatsoever)!

Teleph0nes > crowmolly 12/11/2015 at 16:40

0

I thought this the entire time. Though he is also the kind of person who would go mad with power after realizing how many white supremacists there still are and may now be running for real. That’s why he is no longer a joke to the dems.

Teleph0nes > Sam 12/11/2015 at 16:41

0

He is actually Biff in 2015 from Back to The Future 2

Brian, The Life of > davedave1111 12/11/2015 at 16:58

0

This article is dumb. Those “early 20th century economic policies” the author is referring to is Keynesian Economics. Ol’ John Maynard had is pretty much right, the trouble came in how it was implemented. In Germany, they printed money like crazy an invested in a lot of things that did not stimulate the economy. In the US we printed a bunch of money, too, but we did it in a more sustainable way via massive public works projects that greased our economy for decades later (New Deal).

ranwhenparked > davedave1111 12/11/2015 at 20:32

0

Well, Fascism was supposed to be the “third way” - neither truly right wing or truly left wing, but kind of a melding of socialism and capitalism under a totalitarian government. I suppose you can find some elements of it in both major political parties (Democrats and Republicans), primarily as far as their mutual love of crony capitalism is concerned, but I don’t think anyone in the mainstream of the American political system really fits the term.

People on both sides just love misusing the word to slam their opponents nowadays though. It’s why I immediately tune out whenever the word “fascist” or “Nazi” gets thrown in, it automatically makes me not give one crap about whatever the next thing the speaker is about to say.

davedave1111 > ranwhenparked 12/12/2015 at 10:55

0

“Well, Fascism was supposed to be the “third way””

Yup, that was in the article.

“People on both sides just love misusing the word to slam their opponents nowadays though.”

That was the main point of the article, I think.

davedave1111 > Brian, The Life of 12/12/2015 at 11:03

0

Er, what? No, nothing to do with Keynsianism. Fascists didn’t print money to spend - what you’re referring to is the Weimar government’s mistakes. Also, the New Deal had no positive effect on the US economy during the Great Depression, and didn’t involve printing money* - and of course the Nazis went in for massive public works programmes too.

*In fact, the GD was caused by the Fed tightening the money supply instead of loosening it - so the exact opposite of printing money - leading to the famous ‘Milton was right, we’re not going to make the same mistake again’ speech this time round.

davedave1111 > PS9 12/12/2015 at 11:07

0

I have no idea how you managed to get the impression that anyone other than Trump is being attacked in that piece. Well, unless you only read the first half or something.

If I can summarise for you, the article said ‘Trump’s a cunt, but he’s not technically a Fascist cunt - oh, and here’s something interesting about the economic side of Fascism’. It’s a lucrative mix, because there’s epic trollery combined with actually being informative. As for being on Forbes, it’s there because they pay very well.

Brian, The Life of > davedave1111 12/12/2015 at 13:25

0

To say the New Deal didn’t impact the economy during the GD is crazy. The Public Works Administration put millions of idle workers back to work on hundreds of projects including infrastructure projects from which we continue to benefit. The New Deal was the very definition of Keynsian Economics: when Industry fails, government picks up the slack. The Nazis did a lot of the same thing, true (the Autoban, for example), but they also wasted a TON on propaganda/monument building to enshrine their cultural mythology so the populace would embrace their nefarious goals.

davedave1111 > Brian, The Life of 12/12/2015 at 13:36

0

“To say the New Deal didn’t impact the economy during the GD is crazy.”

Yes, that’s why I didn’t say that. I said it had no positive effect on the economy . That’s the standard economic orthodoxy. Of course as a welfare program it wasn’t entirely ineffective, but it wasn’t very efficient, and it actually contributed to the economic problems.

“including infrastructure projects from which we continue to benefit.”

That’s a good example of why it didn’t work: the future value at the time of making us richer now was basically zero, as it should have been. Why on earth would anyone think it’s a good thing for the US taxpayer in the Depression era to be buying things for the far, far richer nation that is the US now?

“The New Deal was the very definition of Keynsian Economics”

It most certainly wasn’t. And it didn’t work . The US economy didn’t recover until the War started. Really, no economist disagrees, bar a few total nutcases: the Great Depression was solely and entirely caused by government/central bank interference. They tightened the money supply just when Keynesianism says it should be loosened.

“they also wasted a TON on propaganda/monument building”

Can you name some examples? I’m afraid you’re way off base there. There were definitely some, but not many at all in the grand scheme of things. And of course Keynes pointed out that it doesn’t actually matter whether the spending is wasted or not - his famous example was burying money and paying people to dig it up.