• The White House recognizes Nov 7, "National Day for the Victims of Communism"
    90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52871248]Is making the two days prior to 9/11 days of remembrance really the same as picking a day out of November to honor the victims of communism? I don't think so. Why do you think Trump is doing this now? [b]Why this day,[/b] one year after the election he won, decades after the USSR split apart, after successive post-USSR presidents? [/QUOTE] [quote=THE FIRST LINE IN THE DECLARATION]Today, the National Day for the Victims of Communism, [b]marks 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution took place[/b] in Russia.[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution[/url] [quote]October Revolution: 7 – 8 November 1917[/quote] [quote]Nobody is going to "admit to their hypocrisy" if they laughed at people calling Obama a "muslamic atheist socialist" but don't like Trump, and you shouldn't expect them to. [/quote] Except those same people are now, in an equally unfounded fashion, calling Trump a literal neo-Nazi white supremacist. I'd say he's got about as much association with neo-Naziism as Obama does with Islam in that in some way people tried to conflate each of them at some point because they didn't think they were "doing enough" about either of them.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871215][url]https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-09/president-obama-declares-days-of-remembrance-for-9-11[/url] And people are literally making fun of him for his helicopter not flying in the fog. They are making fun of him for his pilot not doing something blatantly unsafe. I honestly see almost nothing on here but childish insults towards him no matter what the topic is, and the hypocrisy of it is getting really fucking annoying because these are the same people who would shit on anyone who made the same kind of childish remarks towards Obama over the same kind of things. And nobody will ever admit to it, because admitting to one's own hypocrisy means that one acknowledges what they're doing is wrong and they're only doing it now because they don't like the particular target of their insults. He does plenty of shit that is worthy of valid criticism. This is not one of those things, yet here people are shitting on it. Frankly, even when he does do something worthy of criticism, all I ever see are insults towards not only him, but literally every Republican. These are the kinds of stupid, childish insults I would make towards Bush when I was literally 12.[/QUOTE] Well for starters, Obama didn't have constant scandal and controversy he needed to distract people from, and, unlike Trump, appeared to have at least once in his life thought about someone other than himself.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871249][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution[/url][/QUOTE] This makes a little more sense. At first I thought it was random virtue signaling to the alt-right. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;52871257]Well for starters, Obama didn't have constant scandal and controversy he needed to distract people from, and, unlike Trump, appeared to have at least once in his life thought about someone other than himself.[/QUOTE] Obama was incredibly charismatic and had a very strong narrative during his elections that carried him to victory. Additionally, he didn't regularly commit faux pas on the international stage like Trump does. But his administration was mostly uneventful, with the most major piece of legislation being a hobbled healthcare bill. Obama did little to nothing to stop the erosion of civil liberties that began after 9/11, and continued to push senseless wars in the Middle East. If you want to see the Obama presidency in terms of actual policy and real action, without the charisma and the narrative of Hope and Change that surrounded his historical presidency, look at Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871249][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution[/URL] [/QUOTE] Fair enough on the day, I'd still really appreciate an answer on why Trump might be the first president to do this. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871249]Except those same people are now, in an equally unfounded fashion, calling Trump a literal neo-Nazi white supremacist. I'd say he's got about as much association with neo-Naziism as Obama does with Islam in that in some way people tried to conflate each of them at some point because they didn't think they were "doing enough" about either of them.[/QUOTE] Are those the same people though? And I don't even think those comparisons are as equally ludicrous. Trump deflected for neo-Nazis and referred to some number of them as "fine people", and has some questionable history with people of color. Obama has zero connections to Islam. There is no possible way for any reasonable person to believe he might even be slightly Islamic. He was raised in a non-religious household and only came into the Christian faith when he became a community activist.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52871310]Fair enough on the day, I'd still really appreciate an answer on why Trump might be the first president to do this. [/quote] I'd like to know why no president has done this before him either. [quote]Are those the same people though? And I don't even think those comparisons are as equally ludicrous. Trump deflected for neo-Nazis and referred to some number of them as "fine people", and has some questionable history with people of color. Obama has zero connections to Islam. There is no possible way for any reasonable person to believe he might even be slightly Islamic. He was raised in a non-religious household and only came into the Christian faith when he became a community activist.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is many of the same people. And Trump has publicly denounced white supremacy and neo-Naziism. And just to be the devil's advocate (because the people screaming about him being a gay Muslim communist were retarded and I want to make it explicit that I don't actually think that nor care about if he was associated to Islam in any way), aren't Obama's father and brother Muslim? You could certainly call that an "association."
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871329]I'd like to know why no president has done this before him either.[/QUOTE] I mean, whats the theory, that Trump cares more about the victims of communism than prior presidents? Because I think thats a hell of a stretch. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871329]Yes, it is many of the same people. And Trump has publicly denounced white supremacy and neo-Naziism. And just to be the devil's advocate, aren't Obama's father and brother Muslim? You could certainly call that an "association."[/QUOTE] If you insist that it's many of the same people then I'll just go back to what I said before and say your only choice is to combat each claim individually as you see them and point out hypocrisy where it exists. As it stands all you are doing is making sweeping generalizations without a single fact to back them up and just calling everyone who criticizes Trump a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871329]I'd like to know why no president has done this before him either. [/QUOTE] It might have something to do with Trump's relationship to one of McCarthy's associates, Roy Cohn [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-roy-cohn.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Harbie;52871247] The Khmer rogue openly identified as communist, and attempted to implement agricultural reforms and a planned economy, hallmarks of communist regimes. They were, as many communist regimes were, wildly nationalistic and repressive. But they were still communist. If you are arguing that that the fact that they were autocratic and xenophobic in addition to being communist somehow makes them not communist, you're committing a fallacy.[/QUOTE] The agricultural reforms performed by the Khmer Rouge were nothing like those under the Soviet Union. While the results were tragically similar (mass starvation), the Bolsheviks booted the kulaks and collectivized the farms under the rural proleteriat. The Khmer Rouge took entire cities of people and put them in what were essentially open forced labor camps. The reason I say it was a stretch to call the Khmer Rouge communist is that while they certainly started as communist, and as you said instituted some aspects of traditionally communist regimes, applied very little practical Communist, socialist, or Marxist thought to their governing.
As someone who's had family be persecuted and killed under the Soviet regime for their ethnicity/religion, this is great imo. People need to be reminded about the shit that communists actually did and people with their heads in the clouds tend to treat communism as less dangerous than it actually is and was.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52871159]Why does this seem insincere to you?[/QUOTE] Because literally nothing of substance has come from it, and nothing came before it other than this sudden "It's a thing now guys." Forgive us for being skeptical that it's anything but another distraction by a failing, corrupt to the core administration. One that's being spear headed by a decidedly incapable businessman who's ridden the coat-tails of his late father to a comfy 70+ years old with nothing of substance built by his own hands. Just doesn't strike a sincere note in the slightest honestly. It's like if the oil company hosted an "green energy accident remembrance day" for remembrance of all those poor people effected by accidents in the green energy sector.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52871388]As someone who's had family be persecuted and killed under the Soviet regime for their ethnicity/religion, this is great imo. People need to be reminded about the shit that communists actually did and people with their heads in the clouds tend to treat communism as less dangerous than it actually is and was.[/QUOTE] The people with their heads in the clouds are just going to think that this is virtue signaling by a president who created the alt-left.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52871375]The agricultural reforms performed by the Khmer Rouge were nothing like those under the Soviet Union. While the results were tragically similar (mass starvation), the Bolsheviks booted the kulaks and collectivized the farms under the rural proleteriat. The Khmer Rouge took entire cities of people and put them in what were essentially open forced labor camps. The reason I say it was a stretch to call the Khmer Rouge communist is that while they certainly started as communist, and as you said instituted some aspects of traditionally communist regimes, applied very little practical Communist, socialist, or Marxist thought to their governing.[/QUOTE] The reforms were nonetheless communist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the forced transition rom urban to rural living under the Khmer was born from a perception of urban life as inherently elitist. In their plan the forced relocation and mass killings were part of the elimination of non-communist ideology. They attempted to justify their aggressive xenophobic policies by stating that it would undermine communist/revolutionary policies to let foreign influence into the country.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52871159]Why does this seem insincere to you?[/QUOTE] For the same reason it seems insincere when he proclaims November as National Native American Heritage month; he just doesn't seem like a [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/03/trumps-pocahontas-jab-at-elizabeth-warren-draws-the-ire-of-native-americans/?utm_term=.21067f407bc4"]very sincere guy[/URL]. [editline]8th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Harbie;52871407]The reforms were nonetheless communist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the forced transition rom urban to rural living under the Khmer was born from a perception of urban life as inherently elitist. In their plan the forced relocation and mass killings were part of the elimination of non-communist ideology. They attempted to justify their aggressive xenophobic policies by stating that it would undermine communist/revolutionary policies to let foreign influence into the country.[/QUOTE] Marx argued for overthrowing the bourgeois and creating a classless society that becomes properous and self-sufficient to the extent that the state withers away on it's own, Marx did not call for a political party lead by one person to round up all urban peoples regardless of class and put them to work on forced labor farms while completely abandoning industry in an effort to regress your people back to the pre-industrial age.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52871388]As someone who's had family be persecuted and killed under the Soviet regime for their ethnicity/religion, this is great imo. People need to be reminded about the shit that communists actually did and people with their heads in the clouds tend to treat communism as less dangerous than it actually is and was.[/QUOTE] I would be fine with this if they also did a reminder of the crimes of Nazis as well Oh, wait The president doesn't condemn neo nazis properly :thinking:
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871073]Stalin wasn't the only communist who murdered shitloads of innocent people in the name of a failed ideology that'll never work. Lenin did too, Castro did, Guevera did, Pol Pot did, the Kims continue to, and lets' not forget that in terms of number killed, Mao was just as bad as Stalin, and both of them were worse than Hitler. Trying to dissociate communist dictatorships with communism is disingenuous because they show the inevitability of what communism becomes when put into practice. The "ideal" communism that communists speak of will never happen, it will always lead to what we've already seen happen in every communist regime, and frankly I think the people who plug their ears and go "That's not real communism la la la" whenever the atrocities of communist regimes are brought up are in wilful ignorance of the reality that communism has never worked and can never work.[/QUOTE] Basic communism 101: communism isn't a goal, it is an inevitability. Karl Marx was a crazy hobo genius. He also was alive long enough to see the rise of Marxism and to call bullshit on the entire movement. Basically he saw the inherit instability associated with capitalism and the problems it presented. He then followed those problems to what he believed to be the logical conclusion. Communism was, in his mind, the logical conclusion to capitalism. Communism, having eliminated the primary sources of conflict, would present as a stable system. He saw capitalism as deeply flawed, but it was necessary to achieve true class consciousness on the road to a stable society. The factions that view communism as a destination have already missed the most important part of communism. It, quite literally, is not real communism. People aren't "victims of communism" they are victims of dictators. People in China don't live in a real republic. North Korea isn't a real democracy. The name is irrelevant. Dictators are the problem.
Why would you create a new national day that has nothing to do with your country? What crimes of bolshevism were present in the US?
[QUOTE=GunFox;52871706]Basic communism 101: communism isn't a goal, it is an inevitability. Karl Marx was a crazy hobo genius. He also was alive long enough to see the rise of Marxism and to call bullshit on the entire movement. Basically he saw the inherit instability associated with capitalism and the problems it presented. He then followed those problems to what he believed to be the logical conclusion. Communism was, in his mind, the logical conclusion to capitalism. Communism, having eliminated the primary sources of conflict, would present as a stable system. He saw capitalism as deeply flawed, but it was necessary to achieve true class consciousness on the road to a stable society. The factions that view communism as a destination have already missed the most important part of communism. It, quite literally, is not real communism. People aren't "victims of communism" they are victims of dictators. People in China don't live in a real republic. North Korea isn't a real democracy. The name is irrelevant. Dictators are the problem.[/QUOTE] Marx was one of the first economists to figure out that capitalism goes from crisis to crisis and is inherently unstable. Maybe marx's communism isn't going to be [B]the thing[/B], but if you want to give people decent lives in a world under automation, capitalism will have to be eroded away somehow.
This is just a meaningless fluff piece that says "wow those wacky commies are so evil and oppressive we stand for FREEDOM and JUSTICE and isn't our system great?"
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52872268]This is a just meaningless fluff piece that says "wow those wacky commies are so evil and oppressive we stand for FREEDOM and JUSTICE and isn't our system great?"[/QUOTE] thats pretty much what i got out of it and any other statement where the us says shit like "our Nation reaffirms its steadfast resolve to shine the light of liberty for all who yearn for a brighter, freer future."
-snip missed the point-
[QUOTE=Tudd;52871159]Why does this seem insincere to you?[/QUOTE] "Why does this seem insincere" Well, my dear naive and oft immoral friend, let me tell you exactly why I personally can't trust anything good this government does unless it's a concrete piece of legislation with actual proper numbers behind it. And it's all because of one man, Donald J Trump. This is a man who [I]held a rainbow flag, with LGBT for Trump written on it,[/I] who then went on to undermine LGBT rights in the military, choose a vehemently anti gay vice president, and continues to support anti lgbt candidates. This is a man who said [I]"No one is nicer to the disabled than me"[/I] and who openly said that he is [I]the only GOP candidate who will not cut obamacare[/I] who then went on to openly, on camera, mock a reporter's physical disabilities, probably fake having a disability to dodge the draft, and push a healthcare agenda which would actively kill people with disabilities and medical needs. This is a man who said he would appoint a special prosecutor and [I]go after Hillary's crimes with HIGH ENERGY[/I] who then went on to say "now that we won, we don't care [that Hillary isnt going to jail] This is a man who said he would [I]drain the swamp of corruption on the Capitol[/I] who then went on to appoint hyper corrupt multi millionaires and billionaires, most with no experience governing or knowledge of science, into high ranking positions where they are openly denying science. To name a few. So you see, it's not me that should "explain why I think it's insincere" It's fucking up to you to explain why this should be taken sincerely.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52872580] It's fucking up to you to explain why this should be taken sincerely.[/QUOTE] Regardless of how you feel on Trump in general, it is obvious [url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/17/donald_trump_anti-communist_135274.html]he[/url] is not for communism. So again, why would anyone feel he is insincere on this specific topic?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52872900]Regardless of how you feel on Trump in general, it is obvious [url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/17/donald_trump_anti-communist_135274.html]he[/url] is not for communism. So again, why would anyone feel he is insincere on this specific topic?[/QUOTE] Because it's blatantly obvious it's to distract people from the on-going Mueller investigation, and a vain attempt at cashing in on the "communism bad, FREEDOM GOOD" train that has existed in the US for decades.
[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;52871315] But yeah the guy who did backdoor deals in Cuba totally gives a shit about victims of communism lol[/QUOTE] Some would say doing business deals with Cuba is a way to counter the communist regime and promote a free-er market. [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52872904]Because it's blatantly obvious it's to distract people from the on-going Mueller investigation, and a vain attempt at cashing in on the "communism bad, FREEDOM GOOD" train the has existed in the US for decades.[/QUOTE] How is that obvious? Is everything Trump does that isn't concerning the investigation a distraction now?
-Snip automerge broke-
[QUOTE=Tudd;52872905]Some would say doing business deals with Cuba is a way to counter the communist regime and promote a free-er market. How is that obvious? Is everything Trump does that isn't concerning the investigation a distraction now?[/QUOTE] More or less. He has repeatedly called for the firing of Mueller, and every time something big has happened or is about to happen, he announces some great thing. This isn't the first time.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52872900]Regardless of how you feel on Trump in general, it is obvious [url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/17/donald_trump_anti-communist_135274.html]he[/url] is not for communism. So again, why would anyone feel he is insincere on this specific topic?[/QUOTE] Because the default position has shifted from "oh yeah sure I can see him being for that" to "Ok, hold up, what's the angle here, he can't JUST be against something bad" For the reasons I stated above.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52873025]Because the default position has shifted from "oh yeah sure I can see him being for that" to "Ok, hold up, what's the angle here, he can't JUST be against something bad" For the reasons I stated above.[/QUOTE] So you think he actually doesn't think communism is a system that kill tens of millions? What is your insinuation? Again, whatever other issues is irrelevant as people are more/less sincere on certain topics, so I want to know why you think it is this one he is being insincere on.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52873036]So you think he actually doesn't think communism is a system that kill tens of millions? What is your insinuation? Again, whatever other issues is irrelevant as people are more/less sincere on certain topics, so I want to know why you think it is this one he is being insincere on.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying anything about his position on anything. If you'll read the hyperbolic example I brought: ""Ok, hold up, what's the angle here, he can't JUST be against something bad"" Notice the "just" there. He may very well be against dictatorial regimes that kill its own citizens (despite the evidence showing he's been very pro-dictator, especially for the ruthless ones) but it's a matter of "Oh shit I can use this coincidental position I have to bump my ratings so the plebs will like me" vs "Oh god, this horrible thing happened, I must let the world know that America is against this" And it's your job to prove the latter.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52873049] And it's your job to prove the latter.[/QUOTE] I provided a link earlier to a [url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/17/donald_trump_anti-communist_135274.html]RCP article[/url] that lists several actions and quotes Trump has had in regards to communism and communist regimes before the announcement of this event.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.