Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 04, 2018

For those who think California politics is on the far-left fringe of the national spectrum, stand by. The next election season, already well underway here, will showcase a younger generation of Democrats that is more liberal and personally invested in standing up to President Trump's Washington than those leaving office. Here in the self-labeled "state of resistance," the political debate is being pushed further left without any sign of a Republican renaissance to serve as a check on spending and social policy ambitions. Even some Republicans are concerned about the departure of Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who proved to be fiscally cautious after inheriting a state seven years ago in deep recession.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The race to succeed him, as well as contests for U.S. Senate and statewide offices, probably will feature a November ballot exclusively filled with Democrats. The top two primary finishers compete in the state's general election regardless of party, setting up several races between the Democrats' left and even-more-left wings in the nation's most-populous state, races that could signal the direction of the party's future.

In an off-presidential election year, California will serve as a campaign lab for many national issues, including taxes, immigration, health care, climate change, rural-urban income disparities and sexual harassment. The campaigns will test for national Democrats the most useful positions on issues important to the party's base and will provide a preview for national Republicans of the popularity of those stands.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

youtu.be

#1 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-02-04 11:43 PM | Reply

Think California is on the far-left fringe?

POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

Nope.

Next question.

#2 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-02-05 04:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Depends on where in California.

#3 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-02-05 04:45 AM | Reply

This is actually good news.

It will show how dangerous and harmful these leftist ideas are.

#4 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-05 08:32 AM | Reply

Far left = looking to the future. Far right = dinosaurs. When in our history has the "far left" brought us to economic collapse? When has the right brought us to economic collapse? When has Crassus been right about anything? And Sawdust? OMG! Too funny!

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-05 09:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If they're looking to the future, they'd move. SoCal doesn't exist when the ice caps finish melting.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-05 10:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

It will show how dangerous and harmful these leftist ideas are.
#4 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

Like righties care. They're still trying to make Kansas a nation wide train wreck.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-05 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It will show how dangerous and harmful these leftist ideas are. "

Who crashed the economy in 2007? Who fixed it starting in 2009? Can't make stuff like that up, yet the dummies on the right still think they know something. Fox addled brains aren't capable of real thought.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-05 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2

I agree, we could be much further left, which will happen if either Moonbeam Jr. or the Latin Lover get elected Governor, which are the most realistic choices at this point.

I can't believe I am saying this, but Moonbeam, in his second incarnation, was probably the most fiscally conservative Governor that CA has seen since Duke. No way that either of the leading candidates for his replacement come even close to his fiscal sanity.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-05 01:38 PM | Reply

Just wait until Gavin NewBeam implements his "Socialism in One State" policy--"free" healthcare, "free" college tuition, etc. The result will be an influx of people, legal and illegal, into our vastly over-populated state, requiring raising the current highest-taxes in the country even more.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-05 02:18 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#10

If that happens then even the limo libs in SF and Hollywood will ultimately revolt, this next year when their accountants tell them that they have to pay $100k or more in extra taxes because they can no longer deduct their $50K property tax on their third home in Emerald Bay/Shaver Lake along with their $200K on the Woodside/Hollywood Hills pad and the $100K on the Carmel/Padaro house they will not be so willing to raise taxes...again.

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-05 02:28 PM | Reply

This is another reason why I think the Latin Lover is better than Newbeam, at least he understands basic math.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-05 02:29 PM | Reply

"Far left = looking to the future."

Like Stalin and Mao?

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-05 03:30 PM | Reply

"Just wait until Gavin NewBeam implements his "Socialism in One State" policy--"free" healthcare, "free" college tuition, etc. The result will be an influx of people, legal and illegal, into our vastly over-populated state, requiring raising the current highest-taxes in the country even more."

There is a limit to what the state can provide because there is a limit to the amount of money that can be collected through taxes. At some point, the amount of service you're receiving don't justify the amount you're forking over in tax dollars. And then you move to Texas.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-05 03:33 PM | Reply

It will show how dangerous and harmful these leftist ideas are.

California has a GDP of $2.448 trillion and a population that has grown for 57 years in a row. It has some of the best places to live in America. Clearly the state is doing something right, no matter how much sob-story Republicans portray it as a liberal hellscape.

Since Texas demographics look more like California demographics with every passing year, maybe my native state will be lucky enough to become a hellscape too.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-05 04:02 PM | Reply

--a population that has grown for 57 years in a row.

Unfortunately for us. In the 70s southern california had half the population of today, and was vastly less-congested, polluted, and more livable than today.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-05 04:12 PM | Reply

"In the 70s southern california had half the population of today"

So did the planet.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unfortunately for us. In the 70s southern california had half the population of today, and was vastly less-congested, polluted, and more livable than today.

Tell your neighbors to stop breeding. Tell your employers to stop being good places to work that keep growing and hiring. Tell Silicon Valley and Hollywood to stop being massive economic juggernauts. Tell your beaches and mountains to be less awesome. Tell pot to be illegal.

California wasn't less polluted in the 1970s where air or lead are concerned.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-05 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Some old formerly lefty folks look in the rear view mirror and see a Nirvana (not the band!) that never exited... they become like rwingers who dream of the good old days of the segregationist, anti-feminist 1950's, only they are talking about the 70's.

They should be looking to the future so they don't get trampled when the newer generations pass them by.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-05 05:41 PM | Reply

#19

I think that a lot of aging progressives grew up in an era where Communism was the prominent progressive force on the planet, and believed that the success of communism was inevtiable. A lot of former SDS members of communist activitists actully went on to become prominent business people, even filling those roles that they had previously derided and despised.

For those who succeeded, it was easy. But if you were one of the millions of progressives of that era who didn't go on to start a tech company, you might have felt a little let down. Many members of the National Socialist party, inclduing Hitler himself, served early on as an official in the Bavarian Soviet Republic...where he considered himself a Social Democrat. When that failed, he and many others looked elsewhere.

And to be fair, most millenial progressives are far more informed than progressives of previous eras, and appear to actually be applkying ctitical thought as opposed to sticking rigidly to some form of political orthodoxy.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-05 06:48 PM | Reply

#20 Isn't the same is true of capitalism, at least the part about millions feeling let down?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 06:55 PM | Reply

- believed that the success of communism was inevtiable.

Please take this the right way... that is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here, ever. And I don't mean the spelling.

And, to be fair, the constant references to Hitler as anything other than a rwing malcontent authoritarian makes progressives around here snicker behind their hand.

Young people in general are more likely progressive than regressives like you and, oh, say, Ayn Rand, because progressives tend to be, well, more pragmatic than ideological... so your projection of some strict ideological pattern on them says a lot more about you than us.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-05 08:02 PM | Reply

"Please take this the right way... that is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here, ever. And I don't mean the spelling."

Are you trying to argue that the members of the SDS (and other groups) that were using direct action in the belief that revolution was right around the corner actually knew that communism was doomed to failure?

"And, to be fair, the constant references to Hitler as anything other than a rwing malcontent authoritarian makes progressives around here snicker behind their hand."

That's because you have a tough time reconciling that he was once what you would have considered a committed progressive...In early 20th century Bavaria, you might have joined the Bavarian Soviet Republic...thinking that it was only a matter of time before Socialism was law of the land.

"Young people in general are more likely progressive than regressives like you and, oh, say, Ayn Rand, because progressives tend to be, well, more pragmatic than ideological."

Based on that, young progressives must be exactly the opposite of old progressives like you. I would say that they're progressive, economically anyways, because they haven't taken an econ course. Those tend to tamper economic progressivism by introducing a reality they haven't yet experienced. That's what happened with me, anyways.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:20 AM | Reply

"#20 Isn't the same is true of capitalism, at least the part about millions feeling let down?"

I'm not sure. If you're one of the hundreds of millions across the globe that has entered into the middle class over the last 20 years, you're a fan. I think those who are less enthusiastic would be those who expected participation prizes...and those don't on the scale that they expect.

I mean, they do exist, but many seem to think that because someone else is making money, they should get a proportional increase in the amount of money provided to them as well. That's not likely to happen under capitalism.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:23 AM | Reply

Since Texas demographics look more like California demographics with every passing year, maybe my native state will be lucky enough to become a hellscape too.

#15 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2018-02-05 04:02 PM | FLAG:

The most diverse city in the US is Houston.

#25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-06 10:09 AM | Reply

#23

I guess people are right when they say you can't teach an old Randian Objectivist and Hitler = rwing authoritarian nationalism deniers new tricks.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 01:23 PM | Reply

California is too expensive. And I don't see it crashing any time soon. Glad my house is paid off in full. Feel bad for all young people starting out here.

#27 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-06 01:46 PM | Reply

--California is too expensive. And I don't see it crashing any time soon. Glad my house is paid off in full. Feel bad for all young people starting out here.

You can thank the pro-population growth politicians in Sacramento, repubs and dems alike, for that. It's just going to get worse.

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-06 01:59 PM | Reply

27
Thats why you're going to take a stand and pledge to sell your home below market value and give the millennial a chance!

#29 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-02-06 02:04 PM | Reply

Yeah. That's gonna happen. Count on it. Honest.

#30 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-06 03:54 PM | Reply

"I guess people are right when they say you can't teach an old Randian Objectivist and Hitler = rwing authoritarian nationalism deniers new tricks."

The only person saying this is you. And it's because you simply can't acknowledge that Hitler was far more one of yours than he was one of mine.

How many of your relatives died in concentration camps, Dorky?

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 06:53 PM | Reply

"I guess people are right when they say you can't teach an old Randian Objectivist and Hitler = rwing authoritarian nationalism deniers new tricks."

The only person saying this is you. And it's because you simply can't acknowledge that Hitler was far more one of yours than he was one of mine.

How many of your relatives died in concentration camps, Dorky?

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:00 PM | Reply

"The most diverse city in the US is Houston."

Because it's run by Democrats since 1982.
Signed,
Nulli

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 07:01 PM | Reply

"And it's because you simply can't acknowledge that Hitler was far more one of yours than he was one of mine."

One of yours? You have a "yours?"
I thought you were like the Marlboro Man or something.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 07:04 PM | Reply

Didn't Hitler run on kind of a rabid nationalistic "Germany First" brand of rhetoric?

#35 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-06 07:14 PM | Reply

-Hitler was far more one of yours than he was one of mine.

"The Nazi problem comes down to this: As an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, anti-egalitarian and fascist ideology, Nazism naturally falls on the extreme far-right end of the political spectrum; but if it can be successfully argued that it's really a form of socialism, it would make more sense to place it on the far left. That being the case, it's becoming more and more common to encounter insistent polemics like this one published on the right-wing blog UFP News: see link

However, the assumption that because the word "socialist" appeared in the party's name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical.

What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term: see link

For members of the Nazi Party, in fact, defending socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the party, or worse. Of party leader and dissenter Otto Strasser (whose similarly-minded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be assassinated by the Nazis), William Shirer writes: see link

The plain truth, writes Historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich, was that Hitler and his party saw socialism, communism, and leftism generally as inimical to everything they hoped to achieve: again, see link

The proof was in the pudding. Not long after acquiring the reins of power, the Nazis banned the Social Democratic Party and sent its leaders and other leftists identified as threats to the National Socialist program to concentration camps. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia: link

"Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded to restrict their availability to "racially worthy" (non-Jewish) beneficiaries. In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed.

Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers.

In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature.

As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of "Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race."

Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists.

What they stood for was the ascendancy of the "Aryan" race and the German nation, by any means necessary.

Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals.

The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."

www.snopes.com

One of yours, dumbass. Try your nonsense meme out on Storm Front, it's well-liked there.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 07:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

34

I'd be a great Marlboro man.....if it could stand cigs.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-06 07:29 PM | Reply

"Didn't Hitler run on kind of a rabid nationalistic "Germany First" brand of rhetoric??"

He did...After the failure of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. But early on, Hitler was closely aligned with left-wing causes in Germany, including being a member of the Red Army. He was also a member of the funeral procession for the BSR leader Kurt Eisner, a Jewish Marxist, after he was assassinated.

The bottom line is that being in favor of Deutschland Uber Alles doesn't mean you didn't have leftist inclinations. The only people who would have felt that way in the 1920s would have been the COMINTERN, under the direction of Moscow.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:41 PM | Reply

"One of yours, dumbass. Try your nonsense meme out on Storm Front, it's well-liked there."

Yeah...I'm pretty sure I would have been in line awaiting the gas chamber...You and your cohort Danni would have been trying on your slick new uniforms.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:43 PM | Reply

- You and your cohort Danni would have been trying on your slick new uniforms.

"The proof was in the pudding. Not long after acquiring the reins of power, the Nazis banned the Social Democratic Party and sent its leaders and other leftists identified as threats to the National Socialist program to concentration camps. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia: see link"

Actual history is not your friend. But keep digging this hole. I'll even lend you a shovel.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 07:51 PM | Reply

"Yeah...I'm pretty sure I would have been in line awaiting the gas chamber...You and your cohort Danni would have been trying on your slick new uniforms."

When have either of them ever expressed a desire to execute their enemies en masse?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 07:54 PM | Reply

"But keep digging this hole. I'll even lend you a shovel."

Would that be the hole you threw me into after gassing me?

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:55 PM | Reply

"When have either of them ever expressed a desire to execute their enemies en masse?"

Are you serious? Danni?

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:55 PM | Reply

I think Corky understands that history is undeniable...he's just being a Snoofy and dancing around it.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:56 PM | Reply

An even better question might be have you ever heard me express my desire to execute enemies en masse.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 08:01 PM | Reply

#44

If you'd like to have the vast majority of expert scholarship mocking your position posted for you in Braille, as examples of it are at the comprehensive Snopes link, I'll see what I can do.

Or you can just continue in your laughable denial.

"The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."

Face it. Hitler was one of yours (as you like to say); a white nationalist authoritarian on the far right of any standard political spectrum you'd like to consult.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 08:05 PM | Reply

"If you'd like to have the vast majority of expert scholarship mocking your position posted for you in Braille, as examples of it are at the comprehensive Snopes link, I'll see what I can do."

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you denying that Hitler was an official within the Bavarian Soviet Republic? Are you denying that he identified as a Social Democrat? Are you disagreeing with the fact that the National Socialist 25 point program would have been to the far left of Bernie Sanders?

You seem to be making my point for me...that you simply can't reconcile Hitler's left wing heritage.

But more to the point, please illustrate what myself and the Fuhrer actually have in common. That might be easier. For you. Not really.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 08:21 PM | Reply

"Are you disagreeing with the fact that the National Socialist 25 point program would have been to the far left of Bernie Sanders?"

"would have been."
So your argument is speculative?

"Bernie Sanders?"
Oh, so it's doubly speculative. About the way the Nazis pretended to be, vs the way Bernie Sanders really would have been.

Reality, it's just so much to grapple with these days, why bother!

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:30 PM | Reply

--a population that has grown for 57 years in a row.
Unfortunately for us. In the 70s southern california had half the population of today, and was vastly less-congested, polluted, and more livable than today.
#16 | Posted by nullifidian

some people insist on being wrong

www.kcet.org

www.google.com

I mean how do you argue with people like this. their ignorance is a shield.

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-06 08:31 PM | Reply

- Hitler was far more one of yours than he was one of mine.

Is what you claimed. The vast majority of expert scholarship says you are wrong.

So, who to buh-lieve? Them or Myth Bomber?

- you simply can't reconcile Hitler's left wing heritage.

It's really pretty easy if you have an IQ over Trump's.

"In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term: see link"

"The plain truth, writes Historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich, was that Hitler and his party saw socialism, communism, and leftism generally as inimical to everything they hoped to achieve: again, see link"

So, big IF, I know.

Perhaps you can understand it in Trumpian terms.... Donnie pretended to be a populist. Guess what, he wasn't. Not even close. Same with Hitler and socialism; it was just a popular term at the time that he used.... of course, you fell for it like a lot of Germans did back in the day.

But they know better, now, and so should you.

Of course, you prolly think that the Democratic Republic of NK is a democratic republic, you know, because it's right there in their name.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 08:33 PM | Reply

I'd be a great Marlboro man.....if it could stand cigs.
#37 | Posted by eberly

You sound like smeagol/gollum

#51 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-06 08:35 PM | Reply

Corky as an amateur historian of hitler and prewar Germany, i have to agree with your assessment 100%

#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-06 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Corky as an amateur historian of Hitler and prewar Germany, i have to agree with your assessment 100%"

OK.

So then as an amateur historian, how do you reconcile Hitler's involvement with the various leftist groups in early 20th century Germany, all of which are well documented? Especially if you're focusing on the economic aspects of the groups he was invloved with.

I think a lot of people on the left have a tough time ackowledging that many groups espousing socialist economics ideals were virtulently racist as well, both here in the US and abroad. Much of the anti-Chinese legislation passed in this country originated amongst white socialists in California who saw the Chinese immigrants as a threat to thier jobs...sound familiar. And even the newest addition to the USan white supremacy movement, Identity Evropa, embraces key left-wing causes like nationalized healthcare and a minimum basic income. And even thier rhetoric (sans the racist ----) would sound right at home at a Bernie rally.

My point is and remains that socialism is ineffective economically, and leads to totalitarianism, whether it's being promoted by the left or the right.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 04:00 PM | Reply

"socialism is ineffective economically"

Is it though?

North Korea managed to scrape together enough loose change to build nuclear weapons, so either nukes are dirt cheap on Ebay now, or socialism can actually deliver sizable economic returns.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 04:10 PM | Reply

very simple simply stated hitler started out supporting one group and quickly went right wing

his change in stance was based on opportunism, the evolving narrative post WW1, the reactions and revolutions occurring and similar conditions

Hitler USED socialism like he used so many other things as perfectly emblematic in the Night of the long knives when he beheaded the group promoting ongoing socialist revolution.

BTW Socialism today means a hell of a lot different than what it meant in 1920

#55 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-07 04:11 PM | Reply

"His change in stance was based on opportunism, the evolving narrative post WW1, the reactions and revolutions occurring and similar conditions"

And that does make sense. When Augusto Pinochet joined the Chilean coup, Allende still regarded him as the last senior general loyal to his cause. It's pretty clear that Pinochet saw an opening he could exploit for his own gain-something further supported by his resistance to return to democratic government, even when the other coup leaders were demanding that he do so. Hitler also tried to join another nationalist organization, I forget which one, but was largely rejected. According to records, he joined the NASDP because he was more confident he could go on to lead it, despite taking flak from other members who weren't impressed by his previous allegiance to the Bavarian Soviet Republic and other non-nationalist causes.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 05:29 PM | Reply

"BTW Socialism today means a hell of a lot different than what it meant in 1920."

What does it mean today? Revolutionary Socialism was a system where the workers controlled the means off production. That experiment turned out abysmally the few occasions when it was tried. But that does not appear to be the route the National Socialists were pursuing back then, or what many right-wing nationalists are pursuing today.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 05:31 PM | Reply

As the expert scholars point out, whatever Hitler did was for nationalist purposes no matter the means he used. And that he was by no means any sort of any definition of a real socialist, ever.

So, your nonsensical claim that, "Hitler was far more one of yours than he was one of mine." on the politcal scale is still completely backasswards.

Now, I know that this is something that is hard for rwingers to admit, but after supporting rwing traitors and clowns like Nixon, Reagan, GW, and now Trump, you'd think they'd at least have the balls to admit what historical political scholarship says about Hitlers rwing nationalism.

Or not.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-07 06:17 PM | Reply

"So, your nonsensical claim that, "Hitler was far more one of yours than he was one of mine." on the politcal scale is still completely backasswards."

Really?

Who do you think comes closer to aligning with Hitler, either economically or socially. At any point in his career.

There is no question that his economic polices were always on the left. So...point Dorky. I'm also not a fan of nationalists, particularly those who stuck family members in concentration camps. Another point Corky.

If you want to debate it...feel free. But there is literally nothing that Hitler ever did that I could empathise with or be in agreement. You can't say the same, just by the virtue of the fact that some of the economic policies pursued by Hitler are now mainstream on the left. If you want to go point by point, that's fine. But in the end you'll either lie, or admit that you're not as fond of progressive economic policies as you claim to be.

In fact, we could make it easier and just compare support for the economic policies of Identity Evropa...many of which I'm certain you would support.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 06:39 PM | Reply

"There is no question that his economic polices were always on the left."

Slave labor is on the left, then?

How about one of his non-economic policies, like murdering kids with epilepsy. Leftist?

Needing some Lebensraum. Leftist?

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 06:45 PM | Reply

"But there is literally nothing that Hitler ever did that I could empathise with or be in agreement."

Not even attacking Stalin?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 06:49 PM | Reply

"Slave labor is on the left, then?"

Heavily employed by The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China.

"How about one of his non-economic policies, like murdering kids with epilepsy. Leftist?"

How about killing millions in the Ukraine to ensure the survival of Socialism? In reality, it's hard to tell who killed more Ukrainians-the National Socialists or the Soviet Socialists. Especially when you take into account that millions of dead Ukrainians are thought to have died fighting in support of the National Socialists.

It's hard to claim that socialism isn't some kind of curse that's been delivered to us for something we've done wrong as a species.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 06:54 PM | Reply

"Not even attacking Stalin?"

Not even that.

When the German armies invaded the Soviet Socialist countries, they were initially hailed as heroes who had come to save them from Stalin. Of course the National Socialists had no interest in the large-scale care and preservation of the "Untermenschen." Himmler gave the order that those who were able to work would (until they died), the rest would be killed off. The exception being those rabid anti-communists who were rolled into the Waffen SS to fight alongside the National Socialist units.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 06:59 PM | Reply

#59

So, ball-less as was assumed. You need to get over your Bernie Sanders = Hitler economic assumptions... as modern scholarship, which you don't address, has gotten over them.

Hitler acted out of nationalist fervor, stealing whatever policy, or party name, he could from whatever source necessary to popularize his movement.

Then, as in the case of socialists, he imprisoned and murdered the true adherents afterwards.

I've made that about as simple for you as possible. Still, you are a rwinger, so.... not expecting miracles here.

If you are a Jew, this shouldn't be surprising to you. It isn't to Bernie.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-07 07:01 PM | Reply

"How about killing millions in the Ukraine to ensure the survival of Socialism?"

That was for the Republic, wasn't it?

I mean, did we conquer Hawaii for Capitalism, then? Commodore Perry fired on Japan for Capitalism? I would say yes to both.

But I wouldn't say we fought the Civil War for Capitalism. That was fought for the Republic.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 07:02 PM | Reply

"It's hard to claim that socialism isn't some kind of curse that's been delivered to us for something we've done wrong as a species."

In that case, it goes without saying the thing we did wrong not killing all the Socialists...

Unless curses are immune to the transitive property or something. I'm not a magical thinker like you, so I wouldn't know...

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 07:06 PM | Reply

I firmly believe that, had it not been for the rise of Hitler, the Soviet Union would have collapsed before the end of the 1940s. Stalin's purges had left the country devoid of any real leadership capability, and the USSR was starving. The invasion of Russia is what allowed Stalin to galvanize the country behind Moscow's leadership, and redevelop (improving greatly) the country's military capability.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 07:09 PM | Reply

"...as modern scholarship, which you don't address, has gotten over them."

There is no scholarship, modern or otherwise, that suggests that Hitler wasn't a supporter of left-wing economic policies. Like I said, Identity Evropa supports them today. It's not even really a matter of debate.

"That was for the Republic, wasn't it?"

No, it was for Socialism. As in other regions, the Kulaks resisted the five year plans being promoted by Moscow, and needed to be reigned in. Moscow could have negotiated, but it would have effectively allowed the Kulaks to retain property rights, and ideal antithetical to Soviet Socialism.

It was done to ensure the survival of socialism...at the expense of the Republic.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 07:15 PM | Reply

"I mean, did we conquer Hawaii for Capitalism, then?

Conquer Hawaii?

The state voted, led by Democrats, to the join the US.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 07:19 PM | Reply

"There is no scholarship, modern or otherwise, that suggests that Hitler wasn't a supporter of left-wing economic policies."

What are "left-wing economic policies" and which ones are common to right-wing, centrist, and/or None Of The Above economic policies?

Let's take as an example of a Hitler policy, "Hitler crushed trade unions."
Is that really leftist?
Isn't it more rightist?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 07:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Conquer Hawaii?
The state voted, led by Democrats, to the join the US."

LOL.

en.wikipedia.org
The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii began on January 17, 1893, with a coup d'état against Queen Liliuokalani on the island of Oahu by foreign residents residing in Honolulu, mostly United States citizens, and subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii.[4] They prevailed upon American minister John L. Stevens to call in the U.S. Marines to protect American interests, an action that effectively buttressed the rebellion. The revolutionaries established the Republic of Hawaii, but their ultimate goal was the annexation of the islands to the United States, which finally occurred in 1898.

------- hell man, how can you be this ignorant?

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 07:56 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort