Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Will Republicans Have A Post Trump Identity Crisis?" video.

Its not just American politics. I'm Australian but went to college in America and our politicians have been doing the same for years. Out politics might not be as toxic, but we are getting there. I was in Canada 3 years ago and it was similar there. Watching what has happened in Britain - its the same there. This whole "we must win the next news cycle at all cost" mentality is worldwide. Its just more toxic in some places.
11
David McConville I was in Canada 3 years ago and it was so like Australia with snow. Its was like somebody just put minus signs in front of the numbers of the weather report and the accents were different. I loved the place and almost moved there - Go Roughriders. Canada like Australia has certain things that even the most idiotic politician wont touch - like Medicare. Every so often one of our lefties throws the claim at the right that they want to change our Medicare and it causes chaos. What most people completely miss with American politics is that they NEVER HAD a real leftist party. Unlike Australia, Britain, Canada and others America never had its Labour party that started in the Unions as a true working class political party. The Democrats actually started in the South and were so right wing racist they started a civil war. People forget that Lincoln (the man who freed the slaves) was a Republican. The KKK actually started among the Democrats. Its only been in the post WW2 era that it changed and particularly under Nixon and then Reagan (especially Reagan).
2
@janefreeman4121 Why Americans can't see or understand how other countries have national healthcare systems and THEY WORK, is one of the greatest con jobs in history. Sorry if this is a little long, but its hard to discuss any of this without first discussing how certain words have been twisted into odd meanings. Sadly or well intentioned my High School English teachers one year chose 1984 as a book and it was horribly cruel on 15/16yr olds. George Orwell famously said if you tell a lie enough times it becomes fact and sadly Americans have been told certain things so many times its actually redefined words. Most notably "socialism" which comes from the word "social" as in "to do things as a society." I'm an engineer but both my parents were high school teachers and years ago they explained what certain terms actually meant. There's a subtle but discernable difference between the nature of government and government functions. The nature is things like how its chosen and organized - democratically elected versus hereditary, upper & lower houses, executive branches,.......etc. But also you can have descriptions of behavior like authoritarian and totalitarian or the opposite free & open. On the flip side the government functions are the organizations and departments it operates - police, army, education, parks, fire, roads and in some countries healthcare. What many people don't realise is that capitalism, communism and socialism are words that describe functions of government and not really the nature of government. What we actually see are governments hijacking labels to mask their true nature. Look at East Germany and North Korea they both labeled themselves as "Democratic Republics" yet neither was democratic and North Korea is now a absolute hereditary monarchy in everything but name. What confuses so many is that most governments mix these things together, but use the label that their population finds acceptable. If they privatize something and allow private citizens to make money doing that function then that something is functioning as a capitalist function and the private operators can make as much money as regulations allow. If the government allows groups of people to collectively do something in a communal way that's communism (in its rawest form). In a very basic way the share markets (emphasis on shares not stocks) are a combination of capitalism and communism. Its capitalistic in that its private ownership and communistic in that its communities of people co-owning entities. Socialism is where a society collectively agrees to fund & operate functions - police, armed services, education,....... and in some cases health care. It actually has nothing to do with the nature of any government. Any government can call it self anything it likes but if it collects money or resources from its society to do something then that something is a socialist function. Half the problem is that besides not teaching people about the world they live in is that we have political players both inside and outside government that literally drown us in misinformation and redefining terms. Trump famously told a journalist a few years ago he wanted the media so discredited that his people would not believe anything they were told. Stalin was great example who claimed he was a socialist when in reality he was a narcissistic sociopath who ran a totalitarian dictatorship. Any political analyst or the Russians or any one else can claim what ever they like, use any label they like and it wont change anything. The USSR was never politically communist or socialist under Stalin it was a totalitarian dictatorship. Americans can say whatever they like about socialism but it wont change that they operate many parts of their society as socialist functions - police, army & education being 3 notable examples.
2
@mykehog6646 FYI I'm Australian and its almost our greatest shame that he was born here. He is proof that no matter how well intentioned or free a society is you can always produce something that you wish you never did. We just had a report that said our elite special forces murdered several dozen civilians in Afghanistan and its horrendous and shameful. But I still think Murdoch is worse because he's poisoned (in terms of brain function) entire societies.
2
David McConville Great point on FDR. What I find so interesting about the term "Progressive" is that until recently I never heard it and yet its not new term at all. It was actually another Roosevelt who championed the term --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912) My basic definition of the term is that it describes people who realise that humanity has to make progress if we are to survive. Simply for any society to advance it has to make progress. To go from point A to point B you can't just jump at the society level it simply is implausible so you have to do it in progressive steps. To me that's kind of logical as I'm an engineer and we do projects by progressing through steps, stages, phases,... etc. This is the real problem that progressively minded people have with the Dems. The Dems might not be as regressive as the far right half of the Republicans, but they are trapped into dependency on the corporate establishment who simply want nothing to change unless they can profit from it. I suspect (and almost expect) both the Democrats and Republicans to split in half. Half the Republicans will become a far right fundamentalist nightmare. Half the Democrats will become a new progressive (but sadly too far leftist) party. The remaining establishment halves of the Dems & Reps will form an uneasy and unhealthy Republicrat (coalition). I call them Republicrats because Democritans sounds shit.
1
If its anyone it'll be Ivanka, clearly she's his favorite. As far as her being accepted just go and check how Marine Le Pen has done in France --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen
1
@ln5425 If you saw Barrick O on Colbert this last week you'd know that her book has out sold his. If you consider the children of most of the previous presidents, apart from George W & Jeb Bush most have taken very low public profiles. On book sales its pretty simple its called promotion. If you're the publisher and you want your investment to work you have to promote it. I think its actually sad. These people had their time and now its over - go away and enjoy your retirement or what ever else is next in you life.
1