Why we shouldn't refer to Harris and Walz as communists

[snarlcakes]

These guys won't be satisfied until I ban you, Hickory, and Bowl.

I’d settle for Hickory.

 

[hoot1]

You had wise parents. They sound like great people.

Thanks SC.

Think my Mother who was a faithful Catholic may have voted for John Kennedy but didn't tell Dad.

Dad shocked me one day when he said,."Lyndon Johnson isn't as bad as I thought he would be ". Have no idea what prompted him to say this.

Dad true to his promise, never took any Social Security money although living to be 70 years old and being forced to contribute to the program for 32 years.

 

[snarlcakes]

Thanks SC.

Think my Mother who was a faithful Catholic may have voted for John Kennedy but didn't tell Dad.

Dad shocked me one day when he said,."Lyndon Johnson isn't as bad as I thought he would be ". Have no idea what prompted him to say this.

Dad true to his promise, never took any Social Security money although living to be 70 years old and being forced to contribute to the program for 32 years.

Awesome story. Thanks for sharing.

 

[UncleMark]

Dad shocked me one day when he said,."Lyndon Johnson isn't as bad as I thought he would be ". Have no idea what prompted him to say this.

My folks hated Johnson. Not because of Vietnam -- they were fine with that. They hated him because he raised taxes to pay for the war. No one since has made that mistake.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

That you think those are comparable shows yours.

They are absolutely comparable.

Why is orange Jesus acceptable but heels up Harris isn’t?

I’m genuinely curious.

 

[UncleMark]

They are absolutely comparable.

Why is orange Jesus acceptable but heels up Harris isn’t?

I’m genuinely curious.

It's a judgement call. You're free to disagree with it.

If I started deleting Orange Jesus posts would you be okay with deleting the sexual Harris posts?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

They are absolutely comparable.

Why is orange Jesus acceptable but heels up Harris isn’t?

I’m genuinely curious.

Because only one of them is sexual, which most decent Americans (being the prudes we are) agree is an extra level of unacceptable.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

It's a judgement call. You're free to disagree with it.

If I started deleting Orange Jesus posts would you be okay with deleting the sexual Harris posts?

I’m against deleting pretty much anything short of explicitly racist stuff or threats. Actually, I wouldn’t argue for deleting anything but actual threats.

We’re all adults here. Let people show who they really are. Makes it easier to know who I’m dealing with and whether they should be taken seriously.

I’m just curious because it seems like goat is saying Orange Jesus and heels up Harris aren’t comparable at all unless one is biased.

I’m wondering what his reasoning is.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Because only one of them is sexual, which most decent Americans (being the prudes we are) agree is an extra level of unacceptable.

I’m a Christian. Comparing Trump to Jesus is sacrilegious. No one I know even REMOTELY considers Trump the equal to Jesus.

It’s objectively more unrealistic than saying Kamala used her ass to get where she is.

There is at least SOME evidence for that.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

These guys won't be satisfied until I ban you, Hickory, and Bowl.

Hickory is one of two people I have on ignore.

There’s no reason to ever engage that guy. It’s a waste of time.

I don’t particularly like Bowl. I think he’s an arrogant ass but he at least makes an argument. I don’t like him but i respect him as a poster.

Goat is entertaining because he’s a punching bag for the dream team.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I’m a Christian. Comparing Trump to Jesus is sacrilegious. No one I know even REMOTELY considers Trump the equal to Jesus.

It’s objectively more unrealistic than saying Kamala used her ass to get where she is.

There is at least SOME evidence for that.

That's fair on a surface level, but I think it's clear that "Orange Jesus" is accusing Trump supporters of idolatry, rather than equating Trump to Jesus. It's not so much sacrilege as an accusation of sacrilege. But I get what you're saying.

All I'm saying is that this need to demean women we disagree with on a sexual level is basically universally accepted as being exceptionally despicable. But we somehow look the other way when the woman is one we don't like.

If you recall the debates over Melania, SHS, etc., you'll recognize that I'm very consistent on this point. I may be wrong, but I'm not coming at this from a partisan angle.

 

[snarlcakes]

That's fair on a surface level, but I think it's clear that "Orange Jesus" is accusing Trump supporters of idolatry, rather than equating Trump to Jesus. It's not so much sacrilege as an accusation of sacrilege. But I get what you're saying.

All I'm saying is that this need to demean women we disagree with on a sexual level is basically universally accepted as being exceptionally despicable. But we somehow look the other way when the woman is one we don't like.

If you recall the debates over Melania, SHS, etc., you'll recognize that I'm very consistent on this point. I may be wrong, but I'm not coming at this from a partisan angle.

You really believe your own bullshit. The rest of us don’t.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

I’m a Christian. Comparing Trump to Jesus is sacrilegious. No one I know even REMOTELY considers Trump the equal to Jesus.

It’s objectively more unrealistic than saying Kamala used her ass to get where she is.

There is at least SOME evidence for that.

You don't think any of his followers treat Trump as if he were Jesus? And don't think Trump uses that to his advantage?

What do you think about Trump editing the Bible?

Or his photo op with the Bible in front of the church?

He pretends to be religious for political gain and you are upset that some people call him on it by using the "o... j..." term?

Trump's behavior is sacrilegious.

 

[indy1203]

You don't think any of his followers treat Trump as if he were Jesus? And don't think Trump uses that to his advantage?

What do you think about Trump editing the Bible?

Or his photo op with the Bible in front of the church?

He pretends to be religious for political gain and you are upset that some people call him on it by using the "o... j..." term?

Trump's behavior is sacrilegious.

I guess you are the final word on what is religious and what is not. umm

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

I guess you are the final word on what is religious and what is not. umm

Never said that, but I am allowed an opinion on the matter even if a mod wants to squash it from staying on the board.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

That's fair on a surface level, but I think it's clear that "Orange Jesus" is accusing Trump supporters of idolatry, rather than equating Trump to Jesus. It's not so much sacrilege as an accusation of sacrilege. But I get what you're saying.

All I'm saying is that this need to demean women we disagree with on a sexual level is basically universally accepted as being exceptionally despicable. But we somehow look the other way when the woman is one we don't like.

If you recall the debates over Melania, SHS, etc., you'll recognize that I'm very consistent on this point. I may be wrong, but I'm not coming at this from a partisan angle.

There’s no way heels up Harris as a description of Kamala is objectively worse than Orange Jesus is as a description of Trump.

Thats your bias showing.

I don’t particularly care what you guys allow or not.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[hoosboot]

There’s no way heels up Harris as a description of Kamala is objectively worse than Orange Jesus is as a description of Trump.

Thats your bias showing.

I don’t particularly care what you guys allow or not.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

You're really not pointing out hypocrisy. You're pointing out that some people who moderate see misogyny as worse than accusations of idolatry. They aren't the same kind of insults, so it's not really hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be deleting "Heels Up Harris" but leaving "Tiny Dick Trump".

I can understand your dislike for "Orange Jesus", especially now that you've explained it some. I haven't seen other people express the frustration with the moniker that way (explaining why you/they find it offensive.) I've only seen people complaining generally about insulting Trump monikers in the context that the mean moderators stop them from flinging dumb misogynistic insults (as though it's really important to them that they be able to flood the board with sexist rants) and not that they are offended by the Trump monikers.

I don't use Orange Jesus, but I'll ask others not to since you've explained why it offends you (even though you didn't really ask ).

 

[kurt cloverdales]

Woodrow Wilson and FDR were Socialists most likely. Asshole Willson gave us the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
FDR the new deal and confiscated privately held gold over $100 in value I believe. Well, he tried, I have pre-33 gold coins real Americans squirreled away and you find those with holes in them because people turned them in to jewelry.


That's when government control over our monetary system really got rolling. Big socialist movement in America after Teddy until Eisenhower.

fsafhmfsa

 

[DANC]

That's a good question. But there really is no definitive answer. How much blue has to be in a specific color before you call it blue?

I think that roughly 40% of the US GDP is comprised of the public sectors at the federal, state, and local levels. And I'd still refer to the American economy as mostly free.

But the level public spending is only one of the variables we'd use to measure economic freedom. Heritage Foundation's annual Index of Economic Freedom, IMO, does a pretty good job. They look at 12 factors spread across 4 categories:

• Rule of Law (property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness);
• Government Size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health);
• Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and
• Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).

They currently rank the US economy as the 25th freest in the world. We do pretty well with everything except government spending and fiscal health.

If the Founding Fathers saw our country today, do you think they'd think it's closer to their idea of the free country they envisioned, or Communism (which I realize wasn't a thing when they were around, but suppose they read up on it.....)?

 

[DANC]

I'm a dumbass

Fixed it for you

 

[DANC]

Orange Jesus and Orange Turd and all that, along with your Lord, your Savior, etc. are ones I wish people would quit using. I don't find them offensive, just juvenile and lame. Offensive can even be a good thing, but juvenile and lame never are.

Since insult by skin color is OK with you, can we call Kamala Black Jesus or Indian Jesus or Jamaican Jesus (I like that one). Maybe Black Turd?

How about Vishnu? Brahma? Shiva?

That all good with you?

 

[DANC]

These guys won't be satisfied until I ban you, Hickory, and Bowl.

No, but it would be a great start

 

[DANC]

fsafhmfsa

Kurt fell off the wagon again

 

[Mark Milton]

Since insult by skin color is OK with you, can we call Kamala Black Jesus or Indian Jesus or Jamaican Jesus (I like that one). Maybe Black Turd?

How about Vishnu? Brahma? Shiva?

That all good with you?

I mean obviously there is a difference. One guy sprays tanning shit on his face, and the other is actually black/indian. Choice versus non choice.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Do we know that Trump has a tiny dick? If true then this isn’t insulting but just fact

 

[DANC]

I mean obviously there is a difference. One guy sprays tanning shit on his face, and the other is actually black/indian. Choice versus non choice.

So what if he wants to put something on his face? It's still an issue of skin tone.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

If you believe tiny hands equals tiny dick then yes

Send a pic of your hands and we’ll vote 😂

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Send a pic of your hands and we’ll vote 😂

 

[Spartans9312]

 

[hookyIU1990]

View embedded media

Guy is a scumbag. 3 of the 4 are just rotten people as far as I'm concerned. The 4th may be also, but I have no desire to read up on Vance or listen to his previous speeches.

 

[UncleMark]

Guy is a scumbag. 3 of the 4 are just rotten people as far as I'm concerned. The 4th may be also, but I have no desire to read up on Vance or listen to his previous speeches.

He's not rotten. He's just a douchebag.

 

[hookyIU1990]

He's not rotten. He's just a douchebag.

Potato, potato. The guy lies to varying degrees about different subjects in order to influence people who are ignorant of the facts at hand. To me, that's a rotten scumbag.

 

[hoot1]

My folks hated Johnson. Not because of Vietnam -- they were fine with that. They hated him because he raised taxes to pay for the war. No one since has made that mistake.

From the beginning my dislike for choosing to stop communism in Vietnam as dictated by the domino theory was from a tactical standpoint.

Why not concede Nam and make our stand in nearby countries more favorable to our winning ?

The decision to make our stand in Vietnam cost the lives of over 50, 000 Americans.

Some of the Water Cooler military experts may disagree with me.

 

[Spartans9312]

Guy is a scumbag. 3 of the 4 are just rotten people as far as I'm concerned. The 4th may be also, but I have no desire to read up on Vance or listen to his previous speeches.

“Liberal elites turn first and foremost to information warfare and narrative manipulation over direct confrontation [so for them] nothing at all would be amiss if the information common people had access to could just be better suppressed.”

 

[jsig]

These guys won't be satisfied until I ban you, Hickory, and Bowl.

But they are assets to the Dream Team message.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

You're really not pointing out hypocrisy. You're pointing out that some people who moderate see misogyny as worse than accusations of idolatry. They aren't the same kind of insults, so it's not really hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be deleting "Heels Up Harris" but leaving "Tiny Dick Trump".

I can understand your dislike for "Orange Jesus", especially now that you've explained it some. I haven't seen other people express the frustration with the moniker that way (explaining why you/they find it offensive.) I've only seen people complaining generally about insulting Trump monikers in the context that the mean moderators stop them from flinging dumb misogynistic insults (as though it's really important to them that they be able to flood the board with sexist rants) and not that they are offended by the Trump monikers.

I don't use Orange Jesus, but I'll ask others not to since you've explained why it offends you (even though you didn't really ask ).

Not 'an accusation of idolatry'.
Juxtaposing a recognizable image of Jesus with any other popular image serves to demean Jesus and cast the other image as sacrilegious...
It's scurrilous.

 

[hoosboot]

@Hoopsdoc1978 was respectful and measured in his explanation, so I'll make sure and ask others to avoid using Orange Jesus. And I'll make sure to ask folks to respond to your posts with the same respect that is given.

 

[Ty Webb iu]

I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.

Meh. Unconvincing. Fence riding will only take you so far. Controlled op maybe.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I've spilled a lot of digital ink defending Trump from the fascist label. One, because he's not. Two, because it cheapens the word fascist. Three, (most important to me), because it ramps up the political climate and creates space for people to justify unethical or harmful methods to defeat him. I think it's undeniable that we've seen that harm over the last 8 years.

But I've personally been pretty much immune to the communist label my whole life. That's probably because I thought the people making the accusation stupid or I had a soft spot in my heart for communism--because I thought its failures a result of the particular circumstances (stop trying it in peasant societies so close to feudalism! Read your Marx!), because I thought it was championed by people with good hearts, and because the ultimate utopian goals appealed to me and I thought them possible. I've become more educated and now mostly disavow those apologetics.

So now, I think it's important to remind everyone that referring to Harris and Walz and their vision as communist is wrong--as wrong as labeling Trump a fascist. Neither Harris nor Walz is, or has, called for nationalizing large swaths of industry, let alone abolishing private property. Neither is calling for a one-party state. Neither wants the kind of wide-ranging central planning communist states have imposed (yes, I know they want some) and we aren't close to a police state where we are spied upon and turned in for the wrong speech only to turn up dead or exiled. One could more accurately refer to them as socialists or proponents of socialistic policies and I think that's fair--they might prefer, like Sanders for example, to move the US towards more of a Scandinavian or European model. And we can debate if that is desirable or achievable. But communism is a different fish altogether.

By continuing to label Harris and Walz communist, though, I fear the following: (1) cheapening the term to the point where it is no longer useful; (2) failing to understand the theoretical difference between socialism and communism in history and confusing the public; (3) failing to appreciate the particular hell that developed under the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian versions of communism and so minimize their horrors; (4) creating space and excuses for political violence and harmful means to achieve the end of defeating the communists; and maybe most importantly (5) driving current Democratic supporters of Harris and Walz into the arms of communist thought and thinkers (and they do exist on college campuses--I studied under some at IU and know a handful now at different universities), making those (especially the young) people susceptible to accepting more or less communist policies in the future because the right has currently labeled the left as communists.

None of this is to say we shouldn't analyze particular policies by each party and think about their potential analogs in either fascist Germany or Italy or communist nations. We should--it's useful to look at how those regimes might have used particular policies and then put up road blocks here to the same usage or culture. But we should be careful because those analogies should always be limited by the phrase "to a degree" since no historical analogies are perfect and those between fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century, on one hand, and America in the 2020s, on the other, are always suspect.

She is backing down from socialist policies such as free healthcare

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/27/kamala-harris-flip-flops-border-wall

Why it matters: It's the latest example of Harris flip-flopping on her past liberal positions such as supporting Medicare for All and banning fracking — proposals that aides say she now is against.

 

[bbafficionado]

Since insult by skin color is OK with you, can we call Kamala Black Jesus or Indian Jesus or Jamaican Jesus (I like that one). Maybe Black Turd?

How about Vishnu? Brahma? Shiva?

That all good with you?

Dont call her wacko. Got banned for using that word on here. Problem is many on here fit the word perfectly.