Guess what newfriend, /pol/ doesn't stand for politics. It means keep jew paranoia out of other boards. How fucking dumb can you be to think we can only discuss politics on /pol/, especially when this is a political book.
It's kind of like reading one of his rally speeches but with that formalness that people sometimes use when they write books + a little more policy coverage and without the performance antics of being in front of a crowd.
It's very personal in a way and that's probably why people compare it to Mein Kampf. It has that same charm.
>>7575131 >that's probably why people compare it to Mein Kampf No, the reason people compare the two is more probably the fact that they've been indoctrinated with the idea that Trump is somehow a fascist on par with Hitler, and therefore the book on his proposed policies must be comparable to Mein Kampf. Both ideas are completely bogus, but a little framing can go a long way.
>>7575973 >why should i read it? Because when you're familiar with Trump's plans you can more easily see when people are lying about them. More importantly, when you inform yourself you can actually build a valid argument for or against his points instead of relying on hearsay and half-truths that litter the media.
those points seem moot if you've ever read any other 'elect me' book. he's a politician - what he says and ghostwrites means jack shit. where did this notion that trump was some beacon of political ethics come from? he's saying different shit - woah? so did fucking obama. this guy's no different than any other crooner.
tell me why you believe this man will make a difference? i don't care about what he says. what can be shown to prove that he will enter the white house and miraculously galvanize this country toward whatever the fuck epoch his supporters seem to believe is so necessary?
presidential elections always bring out the blinds in people. they are idiotically overblown. in our system. no one man will be able to do half of what he claims to want to do, especially so with an either this or that party line. and what does get done will in no way be solely to his credit. of course that is who the masses will point the finger to. it's a lot easier that way than to actually analyze politics. for most people.
so tell me again why should i waste my time rehashing empty platitudes
>>7576021 >those points seem moot if you've ever read any other 'elect me' book Not if you want to discuss those points seriously. You'll have to know what you're talking about. >where did this notion that trump was some beacon of political ethics come from? Not from me. >tell me why you believe this man will make a difference? I never said I believed that. >i don't care about what he says Then please don't pretend you want to have a serious discussion. >presidential elections always bring out the blinds in people Especially obvious in people who claim a candidate is shit while simultaneously declaring they don't know anything about that candidate's points, and that they don't plan on ever finding out about them. >so tell me again why should i waste my time rehashing empty platitudes Do whatever you want, I don't care. But if you decide to go about political discussion like you did in this post, don't expect to ever be taken seriously.
>>7576051 so you have no reason to believe trump will actually do anything different yet want to spout hypotheticals in leu of a political discussion? contrary to what trump's rhetoric may have lead you to believe, a pissing contest does not equal a serious political discussion.
you are the worst type of person to get involved in politics. to simply bark and grovel for some empty notion of proving to be what exactly? are you seeking validation through some some vicarious notion of electing a man whose beliefs you share?
trump is shit, man. politics are shit. get over it and find something else to actually care about.
>>7576139 Where are you getting all this? Are you in the wrong thread?
I only said that when you are familiar with a politician's viewpoints, you have a much better basis on which to build informed opinions about them, while also being able to see through dishonest reporting. This goes for both politicians you do and do not agree with. Your personal stances are not relevant here, it's simply about informing yourself instead of only looking to get your preconceptions confirmed.
I never gave you my personal opinion on Trump to begin with, so don't pretend I did and don't try to steer our conversation toward a discussion about Trump. You are the one somehow taking this all too personally and showing your complete and willful ignorance in the process.
>>7576227 Why would I answer your questions when they don't pertain to the discussion at hand? My comments were never specifically about Trump, yet you pretend I support him and ask me questions that go off that assumption. There's no reason for me to get involved in that.
>if you can't answer these basic ass questions that require the tiniest bit of critical thought Earlier you basically rejected critical thought in favor of 'not caring', while I was merely giving an example of how to expand your critical thinking ability (I'll say it again: read widely and become informed, it's really that simple).
>back at /pol/ You're the one making a political discussion out of this, not me. It's fine if you don't like Trump but don't project your grievances on me like I'm /lit/'s official Trump supporter that has the responsibility to answer your questions.
>sorry for it being so difficult for you here Once again, projecting so very hard.
>>7576059 Anti-identity politics anti-feminist socialist is indeed the best political ideology, but it's not quite Bernie Sanders. He bent over for that black lives matter shit too much. And he won't beat Hillary in the primary.
>>7576285 do you support trump do you go to /pol/ do you really believe reading an 'elect me' ghostwritten pamphlet designed to be readable for the lowest common denominator is a gauge of critical thought
you seem triggered af so i am of thought that you are all those.
>>7576392 Is it really so hard to accept that reading a politician's election program will increase your knowledge about them? It doesn't matter if you like them or if it's 'an 'elect me' ghostwritten pamphlet designed to be readable for the lowest common denominator' when it spells out the policies a candidate wants to instate.
Again, I didn't say anything about Trump's book being 'a gauge of critical thought', because, first of all, that's a very strange way to describe it and second, that's definitely not what it is. I was saying that the most obvious reason to read it is to get to know more about what Trump stands for, so you'll have more knowledge at your disposal to base your opinions on. This principle holds for any and every political party and their election program. How many more times will I have to repeat this today before it gets through to you?
>do you support trump >do you go to /pol/ Sure, I'll answer these completely irrelevant questions so you can try to discredit me with any answer I might give. :^)
>you seem triggered af Projecting again. Stop it.
Please do reply, I can't wait to waste more of your time reiterating my original statement.
>>7576418 The goal of capitalism was never to deliberately kill or inflict cruelty on human beings, but is rather an inevitable consequence of class structures. The same cannot be said of National Socialism as their goal was always inherently genocidal and jingoistic.
>>7576048 Nah, they like him because they're scared of demographic change and the downfall of white supremacy.
Trump supporters are mostly lower-class, older white people. They grew up without knowing a single brown person, when Segregation was in full effect. Now the president is black and their hometown is 15% Hispanic.
>>7576679 uuuh no. People who want trump as president are tired of stupid confirmation biases like the ones you are enacting when looking for certain voter demographics that suit your "informative insults" You're just another cunt who cares nothing but to win an argument and look politically hip and edgy.
>>7576839 No it's not. Philosophy is literature. The humanities section of /lit/ is for talking about things like sociology. >bitch Woah calm down there buddy, don't want to hurt anyone's feelings now do you?
>>7576855 >>7576861 you don't get to taste a board just because you're too much of a pleb to understand proper discussion. Good literature is inherently philosophical the majority of the time. I bet you read for plot, you both fucking disgust me.
>>7576901 It's true that idea is essential to great/beautiful use of language, though. But literature is about artful use of ideas. Philosophy is just about developing the ideas themselves. That's belongs on /his/, while poetry and so on is what belongs on /lit/.
>>7576916 >putting philosophy and the discussion of philosophical fiction on two seperate boards I can tell you weren't actually round for the split, it was pretty explicitly understood by people on both sides that philosophy belonged on /lit/.
>>7576924 You can tealk about the philosophical content of philosophical fiction on /his/, and the aesthetic content on /lit/. And anyway, philosophical fiction is typically philosophically inferior to actual philosophical treatises as the philosophical content is hampered in what is primarily an attempt to create an aesthetic experience, or in some cases the aesthetic content is hampered in an attempt to develop the ideas in a more thorough way. And finally, it is clealry you who wasn't around for the 'split', as pretty much everyone agreed that philosophical discussion should be moved to /his/.
>>7576964 >You can tealk about the philosophical content of philosophical fiction on /his/ So you're saying I can only talk about existentialism in notes from underground on fucking /his/? Are you high? Kill yourself my man.
>>7576455 Here's my response: you're a dumb fucktard that can't discern quality of thought. Your whole argument could be taken to such a stupid extreme of 'oh, he's running for office? Might as well read em' - void of any other considerations. Why? Well because apparently you're too afraid to actually engage with Trump as a specific and have cowardly tried to blanket the conversation as some half ass pull to 'dude, just read.' Hopefully at some point in time you'll be able to tell the difference between what is worth giving credence to.
>>7575137 His track record on LGBT+ issues is also more palatable to the general public. I mean it won't sate 'Tumblristas', but they will crucify actual LGBT+ people who don't align with their vague and amorphous definition of 'queer'.
>>7572760 Literally, he has a strict constructionist view of the constitution. Obama says he follows the constitution. No. Trump does. He isn't even that far right. It's not a Human Rights violation to check who's coming into our country.
>>7580284 >Here's my response: you're a dumb fucktard that can't discern quality of thought. Nice baseless assumption, didn't expect that. >Your whole argument could be taken to such a stupid extreme of 'oh, he's running for office? Might as well read em' - void of any other considerations. Why? Well because apparently you're too afraid to actually engage with Trump as a specific and have cowardly tried to blanket the conversation as some half ass pull to 'dude, just read.' Dude, I get it, you hate Trump. It doesn't matter. As I've made clear many times already, my point doesn't concern Trump specifically so it's pointless to keep trying to force him into the discussion. Even so, where do you get the idea that I'm 'afraid to engage with Trump'? If I would read his book I would have no choice but to read it with a critical mind. >Hopefully at some point in time you'll be able to tell the difference between what is worth giving credence to. Are you seriously pissed off because I made some valid points about reading a book you don't like by a person you don't like? Are you seriously pissed off because I'm not willing to pick a side in the matter? Do you really think that invalidates what I've said in this discussion? Go read it all over once more and Make Your Mind Great Again!
>>7580339 I think banning someone on religion is very stupid but it's the best we've got. Letting in noone is better than letting in everyone. When the government says "we'll do checks and crack down" they won't. The Muslim ban is stupid and awful which goes to show how bad our politicians are that it's the best idea we have.
>>7580368 Citizens of a country and members of a religious group aren't even sort of the same thing. It's also super impractical, for instance you'd never know my religious beliefs unless I told you, and I could just as easily lie if it was convenient to me
>>7580777 >Citizens of a country and members of a religious group aren't even sort of the same thing. That doesn't really matter, the president can instate a ban on any kind of group. >It's also super impractical, for instance you'd never know my religious beliefs unless I told you, and I could just as easily lie if it was convenient to me This is true, that's why the ban would probably mean that any citizen from an islamic country is temporarily barred from entering the US. Considering the grand majority of citizens of islamic countries are muslim, this is much more practical than asking for every immigrant's religion individually. I understand this might cause some problems to arise regarding christian minorities in islamic countries, etc., but I'm sure there are some high-energy Trump interns thinking up ways to work around those problems.
>>7580815 The administration stopped processing refugee requests from Iraq for six months in 2011. This sounds a lot more innocent, but it's effectively the same thing.
>>7580987 Yeah I wasn't saying it was, was I? But if you declare a ban on muslims you can't just say 'oh you're a christian, I see, well I'm sorry but in you live close to achmed so I'm just going to pretend you go to his mosque anyway'. That's not how that works.
>>7580997 Just to be clear, by 'problems' I meant that non-muslim groups who live in majority-islamic countries might run into issues with immigration to the US if enforcement of the ban is done on the basis of country of origin instead of a survey of religion.
>>7576418 >Capitalism kills millions annually and has, since the time of the second ww, killed hundreds of millions more than hitler ever killed. this is quite literally untrue the act of free trade by definition cannot kill another person and when violence is used to coerce markets then it is no longer a free market, and thus no longer capitalist
>>7580997 that's actually how a sensible and effective immigration policy would work: Rand Paul wants to target nations with known terror cell activity and that includes temporarily banning all travel from those places including student visas
>>7581264 true, I do actually believe that communism hasn't been fully realized and that for the most part neither has capitalism the difference is that communism failed because they tried it and at its very basis socialism is a practical failure whereas capitalism is succeeding in spite of what's holding it back, and nearly every criticism of capitalism is something that is standing in the way of free markets >the fed >wallstreet banks >student loans all problems caused by subsidization and corporatism which are enemies of capitalism
>>7581290 State socialism has been tried, they never got to the point of communism.
Also, neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is succeeding. What is most successful is a sort of centrist state with both a market economy and a welfare state as can be seen in every developed country. There are two main versions of this now, the liberal and the authoritarian kind, but both are essentially variations of the same system.
The notion that 'pure capitalism' would be even possible by your definition requires the eradication of violence as a factor, which will never happen, since the only way to keep violence at bay is to have some institution with the monopoly on violence and such an institution will by its very existence coerce markets in some way.
Seems to me like we would be better off tweaking this hybrid thing we've got going than fantasising about the impossible.
>>7572760 No, for the simple reason that Mein Kampf actually inspired millions to support Hitler, whereas it's highly likely that anyone genuinely influenced by Crippled America already supported Trump based on his speeches.
>>7581375 Not to mention that Mein Kampf was more egocentric, the title alone shows that. Mein Kampf was about Hitler first and foremost, it was about his struggle, Trump's book is about America and the American people. Trump has a large ego but he's also quite clearly not a narcissist, Hitler on the other hand likely was.
>>7581425 Give me an honest, reasoned explanation of what makes you think Trump is a narcissist. >>7581431 >capitalism presumes liberalism False. Capitalism can work under Conservative governments, monarchy and dictatorships. It's purely an economic model. Everyone having the right to own property does not make Capitalism. When it started serfs could not own property, but it was still capitalism.
>>7581446 >Give me an honest, reasoned explanation of what makes you think Trump is a narcissist. He seems to have all the traits, although I agree not to the degree that Hitler had them who seemed to think providence itself was concerned with every step he took.
>>7581468 He's brash and boastful, there's a difference between that and narcissism. You need to consider also that narcissism is typically a defense against terminally low self esteem. Hitler had every reason to form this. Abused by his father, rejected from art school, NEET for years and in a country humiliated by the treaty of Versailles. Why would Trump have self esteem issues? Like it or not, he's a winner. He's wealthy and has a family. He's at the very least no more narcissistic than other big business types. I feel he has more potential for psychopathy than regular narcissism.
>>7581290 Banks and credit are not optional but arise because of necessity; you can try to ban Usury but a black markets will just arise with even higher interest rates. Once credit comes into existence debt is a necessity to compete.
Corporations are the idealized way to pool resources and socialize production under capitalism and minimize individual risk.
>>7581446 If you lack private property you're dealing with something quantitatively different than capitalism [for the better or worse]. Capital requires free wage labour, it's not optional. Capitalism can only exist with certain political presumptions.
>>7581486 I'll concede, you make a fair point. I still think it's dubious to claim that every time someone stubs their toe under capitalism that it is the fault of capitalism, though, which is often what the typically "millions died under capitalism" types tend to claim.
>>7581514 Yeah, I feel that it could be possible. Statistically speaking anyways, a man of his status is more likely to be afflicted. I've also known people who have been psychopaths in the past, it's not something new to me. Thank god I live in the UK, where our new right is repped by based Nige, whom I trust to actually deliver on his policy rather than just profiteer from his position. It's a shame he'll never ever become PM
>>7581581 True, but you could then argue Capitalism has exploitation at it's core and Communism has killing at it's core. The difference is the exploitation of Capitalism is debatable, whereas the discussion around Communism is only whether or not the killing is just. Personally, I don't trust political ideologues to make rational decisions on who deserves to live and who doesn't.
>>7581589 Well, you could say commies only have to kill because the exploiters won't stop give up exploitation without a fight and that the killing is merely an effect of the status quo deliberately posing an obstacle to a more well ordered society.
I wouldn't trust the bourgeoisie to make rational decisions on who deserves to eat and who doesn't either, by the way.
>>7581680 Communism continues to kill after the initial revolution though. It supports the killing of anyone who promotes bourgeoisie sentiment even if they are non violent and don't own any property. At that point it's far removed from justice and is pure authoritarianism.
>>7581704 No, just my sense of justice. I can understand killing the bourgeoisie if you consider them to be exploiting the poor and destroying the planet but killing anyone who disagrees with you is pretty bad behaviour, and I couldn't imagine how you would justify it beyond "might makes right".
>>7581711 Once you've overthrown the exploiters wouldn't it make sense to not let people openly be reactionary and try to reinstill the former situation?
Is telling a few people to 'shut up or else' worse than facing the risk that your revolution will be for nothing because you allow rhetorical sabotage to flourish, especially given the fact that such a tolerance would immediately be exploited by outside forces who wish to see you fail?
Censorship, especially when you're dealing with a brand new regime that's still very fickle, is not only reasonable but a necessity in such a situation.
>>7581741 Perhaps when you are dealing with a new regime, but has Communism ever made it past the dictatorship, and allowed the state to shrivel and die? This is a sincere historical question. It seems to me that Communism ultimately serves to transfer power and wealth from one elite to another.
>>7580326 oh. OH. my bad. i didn't know you went through the trouble of all this just to earnestly expound on the virtue of reading and i guess argue(?) for the fuck of it. i honestly didn't believe someone who was that removed from the conversation would have continued on and on unless they themselves felt they needed to continue it to, uhm, idk, prove some strange personal point. that yeah reading is good? idk. sure(?). to jump in without base with an open mind when one already has the capacity to judge the character of the author and the subject at hand through their own prerequisitional knowledge though? no. it's why i don't need to read 'everybody poops.'
>>7581770 Depends on your definition of communism. For 99% of human history we lived in small hunter-gatherer bands that were pretty much equal and leaderless that shared their possessions, which is seen as primitive form of communism by some.
If you mean have people ever created a stateless communism in modern times apart from a few short lived enclaves then the answer is no for as far as I know, but I believe commies think the world should first become socialist before a transition to actual communism would be a possibility. So not dismantling your own state while there are other states surrounding you foaming at the mouth to ruin your shit isn't necessarily an argument against communism.
>>7582045 >to jump in without base with an open mind when one already has the capacity to judge the character of the author and the subject at hand through their own prerequisitional knowledge though? no. it's why i don't need to read 'everybody poops.' Such gems every single time!
>>7576803 I'm so tired of people playing this card. The muppet wants to build a wall, he calls all Mexicans rapists, he publicly mocks disabled journalists, his supporters are borderline Nazi trash ready to harass anything non-white at a Trump rally, and ready to use violence at anything that's not as fucking retarded as they are. You're a fucking idiot. I hate people like you. He is literally a political psycho, and the fact that he's gained this much popularity should be a wake-up call to every one in the world that whatever it is the Yanks are doing, it's going incredibly wrong. Remember that Hitler was an incredibly successful politician for a couple of years, while still spewing racist hatred. You don't need death camps to be compared to Hitler.
What? He wants to completely halt Muslims from entering the country, whether they're immigrating or just visiting, dissolve the EBT program and make use of the nuclear arsenal, all things every other Republican candidate has called him out for.
The question is comrades, do we kill off all the helpless masses, or join with them? And if we kill off the helpless masses, how do we know the killers won't consider us part of them, since we are in fact part of them?
>>7584019 You're either trying to have a giggle or are completely naive. Our current president, like every president before him, is and has been under threat of having his life snuffed out everyday. A president that delights in stepping on toes as much as "The Trump" would be lucky to live past the first month in office. Regardless of what party he belongs to, he is a very brash man and will anger a lot of foreign powers, as well as domestic ones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.