Is Trump the American Khruschev? (1 Viewer)

[sanman]

Critics of Trump like to call him crude, ill-mannered, and uncivilized ("Ugh, what is that uncouth guy saying this time? What a caveman!")
People used to say the same about Khruschev ("Look - he's taken off his shoe and is hammering it on the table! What a caveman! What a dumb farmer!")

Khruschev was a reformer.
Many say that Trump is a reformer too.

Khruschev became leader due to a backlash following the rule of Stalin. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin was not a Russian himself, but came from a tiny ethnic minority - he was Georgian.
Coming from the tiny Georgian minority and having to contend with much larger ethnic groups like Russians and Ukrainians, he naturally wanted to build up a huge overpowering state in order to give him the means to grapple with much larger social groups, in order to bring society to heel under his vision.

Trump became POTUS in a backlash against the policies of his predecessor, who was also an ethnic minority. This predecessor likewise wanted to build up an overpowering state to help him stamp his vision onto the wider society, and bring larger uncooperative groups to heel. Eric Holder wasn't as severe as Dherzinsky, but he had some attitudes towards the rest of American society which many deem unhealthy.


And yet what happened to Khruschev in the end? When his far-reaching reforms stumbled, he got prematurely pushed out - his opponents had him put out to pasture.
Trump is engaging in far-reaching reforms too. If these should stumble and the economy runs into serious adversity, then his opponents will likewise pounce, and have him put out to pasture.


What are the risks of this happening?

 

[Xelor]

Is Trump the American Khruschev?

No. Khrushchev was guileful, hubristic and willful, but he wasn't a complete idiot and/or senile.

 

[Slavister]

So many attempts to put some kind of lipstick on that pig...

 

[sanman]

No. Khrushchev was guileful, hubristic and willful, but he wasn't a complete idiot and/or senile.

Oh? Explain to me how these amount to differences between Khruschev and Trump.
Exactly how is Trump "complete idiot and/or senile"?

You seem to be speaking as one of Trump's opponents. Khruschev likewise had opponents who would've said the same about him.

 

[Hawkeye10]

America sure has been looking more and more like the Soviet Union as the Failed Intelligentsia! insist upon forced marching us to UTOPIA.

 

[Amelia]

Trump is not reforming.

Creating chaos is not reforming.

What is "far-reaching" is the amount of damage Trump is doing to our relationships around the world and how hard it will be for us to reestablish bonds with those who have no reason to trust us anymore.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Trump is not reforming.

Creating chaos is not reforming.

What is "far-reaching" is the amount of damage Trump is doing to our relationships around the world and how hard it will be for us to reestablish bonds with those who have no reason to trust us anymore.

The bungling from start to finish in Iraq, the Great Recession and the broken global economy and the broken not working well or at all global institutions that have been long supervised primarily by America took care of that long before Trump glided gracefully down the escalator.

And too then there were all of those lectures to the world over decades....and all of the lies told....

 

[sanman]

So many attempts to put some kind of lipstick on that pig...

So Comrade Khruschev is lipstick to Trump's pig? You're saying something about yourself, comrade.

Trump is not reforming.

Creating chaos is not reforming.

What is "far-reaching" is the amount of damage Trump is doing to our relationships around the world and how hard it will be for us to reestablish bonds with those who have no reason to trust us anymore.

Oh, and what did Khruschev's opponents say about his reforms, comrade Amelia? Did they not deride them as chaos which threatened stability? Were they not unhappy at the ties which had been snapped with fellow comrade nations, such as Albania and China?

Come on now, comrade Amelia. Aren't you really just feeling a little nostalgic for your previous leader who could make the welfare state and the gravy trains run on time?

 

[Slavister]

So Comrade Khruschev is lipstick to Trump's pig?

Apparently that's what you are trying to picture here, comrade. Talking about "Trump reforms"... Ha! Khruschev actually tried to better USSR, even in laughable ways. Trump is just out for his interests and promoting his brand, which is his image.

 

[Amelia]

So Comrade Khruschev is lipstick to Trump's pig? You're saying something about yourself, comrade.




Oh, and what did Khruschev's opponents say about his reforms, comrade Amelia? Did they not deride them as chaos which threatened stability? Were they not unhappy at the ties which had been snapped with fellow comrade nations, such as Albania and China?

Come on now, comrade Amelia. Aren't you really just feeling a little nostalgic for your previous leader who could make the welfare cheques and the gravy trains run on time?

Comrade Amelia?


Sorry for stopping in on your thread. I'll try not to make such a mistake in the future.

 

[sanman]

Apparently that's what you are trying to picture here, comrade. Talking about "Trump reforms"... Ha! Khruschev actually tried to better USSR, even in laughable ways. Trump is just out for his interests and promoting his brand, which is his image.

Please do tell me how Khruschev's reforms were better than Trump's, comrade. Trump is a capitalist, which clearly rankles you - it's because he's a capitalist that he promotes his brand.

 

[Grokmaster]

Please do tell me how Khruschev's reforms were better than Trump's, comrade. Trump is a capitalist, which clearly rankles you - it's because he's a capitalist that he promotes his brand.

Uh-huh. Yeah, he's really rakin' it in as POTUS, and still DONATES HIS PAYCHECK.

 

[uptower]

Critics of Trump like to call him crude, ill-mannered, and uncivilized ("Ugh, what is that uncouth guy saying this time? What a caveman!")
People used to say the same about Khruschev ("Look - he's taken off his shoe and is hammering it on the table! What a caveman! What a dumb farmer!")

Khruschev was a reformer.
Many say that Trump is a reformer too.

Khruschev became leader due to a backlash following the rule of Stalin. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin was not a Russian himself, but came from a tiny ethnic minority - he was Georgian.
Coming from the tiny Georgian minority and having to contend with much larger ethnic groups like Russians and Ukrainians, he naturally wanted to build up a huge overpowering state in order to give him the means to grapple with much larger social groups, in order to bring society to heel under his vision.

Trump became POTUS in a backlash against the policies of his predecessor, who was also an ethnic minority. This predecessor likewise wanted to build up an overpowering state to help him stamp his vision onto the wider society, and bring larger uncooperative groups to heel. Eric Holder wasn't as severe as Dherzinsky, but he had some attitudes towards the rest of American society which many deem unhealthy.


And yet what happened to Khruschev in the end? When his far-reaching reforms stumbled, he got prematurely pushed out - his opponents had him put out to pasture.
Trump is engaging in far-reaching reforms too. If these should stumble and the economy runs into serious adversity, then his opponents will likewise pounce, and have him put out to pasture.


What are the risks of this happening?

What Trump is engaged in is neither 'reform' nor 'far-reaching' In fact it is decidedly near-sighted - about as far as his twitter feed. If he's getting pushed out it's because he corrupt, nepotistic, incompetent, vainglorious, anti-social and a crook. Like Nixon, only dumber.

It is not because people cannot stand the awesome brilliance that radiates from his 3D chess moves. It's because he's a buffoon.

Also really, Obama was like Stalin? :doh

 

[Xelor]

Oh? Explain to me how these amount to differences between Khruschev and Trump.
Exactly how is Trump "complete idiot and/or senile"?

You seem to be speaking as one of Trump's opponents. Khruschev likewise had opponents who would've said the same about him.

I have reason to think Khrushchev was mad, but not that he had begun to suffer from age-related dementia (senility), certainly not a very early onset version of it insofar as he was younger than 70 during his tenure as the Soviet premier.

Red:
Dementia/senility typically commences around 80 years of age, give or take a few years either way; however, that's just the average/typical onset age range. It can start notably sooner or later than that, with the early onset age range being around 60-65 years old and going up to about the late seventies.

(video published July 2017)​

What Trump’s Speech Says About His Mental Fitness

• This essay is important to read because its author highlights examples of what makes certain linguistic behaviors be not "normal" but rather suggestive/indicative of dementia. Of course, everyone "has their moments," but non-dementia sufferers don't have them in the same ways, at the same frequencies (relative to the person's baseline of piro behavior patterns), dementia sufferers do. To be sure, the signs are, in the early to mid stages, subtle, but if you've watched someone, say a parent, go through them, and you are a careful and frequent observer of Trump, you'll recognize them.

10 Early Symptoms of Dementia

• Subtle short-term memory changes
  • Trump prematurely walking off the stage at the G20
  • Trump forgets he just acknowledged John Cornyn
• Difficulty finding the right words
  • Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged
• Changes in mood
  • All Donald Trump’s NAFTA mood swings in one chart
  • Trump's mood takes a foul turn: 'He's pissed -- at damn near everyone'
• Apathy
• Difficulty completing normal tasks
• Confusion
  • 19 Times Donald Trump and Co. Were Confused About History, Including Canada Burning Down the White House
  • Every time Trump made up, confused, or didn’t know of countries that actually exist
• Difficulty following storylines
  • Donald Trump’s Shortest Attribute Isn’t His Fingers
  • Trump Has Trouble Staying Focused. And That Was Before the Mueller Indictments.
  • Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged
• A failing sense of direction
• Being repetitive
• Struggling to adapt to change

Blue:
There's no doubt about it. I detest Donald Trump, but, from professional and social friends and close acquaintances, I've, long before he became POTUS or a TV star, heard tell of his knavish, delusory, rapacious, repugnant character and his general intellectual indolence. And make no mistake those are Trump's qualities that engender my disdain of his ascension to the presidency. His policies are not so singular that nobody else might implement them. Hell, Pence would, as would most of the GOP-ers against whom he ran for POTUS.

That said, my suggesting that he's got dementia is a matter of my giving him the benefit of the doubt for having a condition that bridles his consciously controlling and coherently conjuring the words and deeds he utters/exhibits. Indeed, if the lack of restraint and reason that man exhibits is borne of his "right mind," he's far more revulsive than I had ever imagined.

Be that as it may, if the man has early onset dementia, I pity him; however, the US doesn't deserve to have a demented POTUS.

 

[joko104]

No. Khrushchev was guileful, hubristic and willful, but he wasn't a complete idiot and/or senile.

A Democrat defending and boasting of Khrushchev is no surprise within the new International Fascist Democratic Party that has replaced the American Democratic Party as the global super rich have bought and control.

 

[sanman]

What Trump is engaged in is neither 'reform' nor 'far-reaching' In fact it is decidedly near-sighted - about as far as his twitter feed. If he's getting pushed out it's because he corrupt, nepotistic, incompetent, vainglorious, anti-social and a crook. Like Nixon, only dumber.

But Nixon was Mr Gotta-Stop-Moscow, Mr Watch-Out-for-the-Rooskietooskies. Surely that must make him a saint, to you. The fact that your side emulate his behavior non-stop is an indication of your own hypocrisy.

It is not because people cannot stand the awesome brilliance that radiates from his 3D chess moves. It's because he's a buffoon.

Also really, Obama was like Stalin? :doh

Premier from marginalized minority sought big govt as his Big Brother to stomp all over all those other pesky ethno-socio-economic groups from that pesky wider society that he didn't identify with.

Govt should not be made into your personal colossus or genie to make everyone else do your bidding. Other people have lives of their own to live, rather than wanting to revolve around you.

 

[calamity]

Critics of Trump like to call him crude, ill-mannered, and uncivilized ("Ugh, what is that uncouth guy saying this time? What a caveman!")
People used to say the same about Khruschev ("Look - he's taken off his shoe and is hammering it on the table! What a caveman! What a dumb farmer!")

Khruschev was a reformer.
Many say that Trump is a reformer too.

Khruschev became leader due to a backlash following the rule of Stalin. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin was not a Russian himself, but came from a tiny ethnic minority - he was Georgian.
Coming from the tiny Georgian minority and having to contend with much larger ethnic groups like Russians and Ukrainians, he naturally wanted to build up a huge overpowering state in order to give him the means to grapple with much larger social groups, in order to bring society to heel under his vision.

Trump became POTUS in a backlash against the policies of his predecessor, who was also an ethnic minority. This predecessor likewise wanted to build up an overpowering state to help him stamp his vision onto the wider society, and bring larger uncooperative groups to heel. Eric Holder wasn't as severe as Dherzinsky, but he had some attitudes towards the rest of American society which many deem unhealthy.


And yet what happened to Khruschev in the end? When his far-reaching reforms stumbled, he got prematurely pushed out - his opponents had him put out to pasture.
Trump is engaging in far-reaching reforms too. If these should stumble and the economy runs into serious adversity, then his opponents will likewise pounce, and have him put out to pasture.


What are the risks of this happening?

Trump is stupid. Of that there is no doubt.

 

[Xelor]

Trump is stupid. Of that there is no doubt.

I don't know that I think him abjectly stupid, but he's more so than is typical in his professional peer group. That he is makes him more a comparative idiot than an absolute one. That said, I am of the same mind about US and global citizens, by dint of his holding the POTUS office, being violable to the vulgarities, vagaries and vicissitudes of his veritable mental midgetry and bêtise.

 

[Luckyone]

Critics of Trump like to call him crude, ill-mannered, and uncivilized ("Ugh, what is that uncouth guy saying this time? What a caveman!")
People used to say the same about Khruschev ("Look - he's taken off his shoe and is hammering it on the table! What a caveman! What a dumb farmer!")

Khruschev was a reformer.
Many say that Trump is a reformer too.

Khruschev became leader due to a backlash following the rule of Stalin. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin was not a Russian himself, but came from a tiny ethnic minority - he was Georgian.
Coming from the tiny Georgian minority and having to contend with much larger ethnic groups like Russians and Ukrainians, he naturally wanted to build up a huge overpowering state in order to give him the means to grapple with much larger social groups, in order to bring society to heel under his vision.

Trump became POTUS in a backlash against the policies of his predecessor, who was also an ethnic minority. This predecessor likewise wanted to build up an overpowering state to help him stamp his vision onto the wider society, and bring larger uncooperative groups to heel. Eric Holder wasn't as severe as Dherzinsky, but he had some attitudes towards the rest of American society which many deem unhealthy.


And yet what happened to Khruschev in the end? When his far-reaching reforms stumbled, he got prematurely pushed out - his opponents had him put out to pasture.
Trump is engaging in far-reaching reforms too. If these should stumble and the economy runs into serious adversity, then his opponents will likewise pounce, and have him put out to pasture.


What are the risks of this happening?

Thanks for the history lesson. The bottom line is that Trump is incompetent and incompetency means that things do not get done in a way that work. Putin, for example, is competent and is why Russia works for the Russians. Trump is trying to copy Putin but he is incompetent and therefore his efforts will fail. In addition, Russia was never a Democratic country and why autocracy works and worked in the past. Our forefathers saw this potential problem and as such put in a checks and balances plan that prevents anyone from taking over, such as Lenin and Putin did.

Trump had 2 years to "make it happen" given that he had both the House and the Senate in his pocket. He failed and now with the House being Democrats, things are starting to go south on him because he has no idea of what he is doing. Trump will ultimately become the biggest joke that ever became President.

What does this say about the people that support him?

 

[Xelor]

Mr. President, it is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Josef Stalin to describe his enemies.
-- Sen. Jeff Flake​

Key to Stalin's rhetoric was vragi naroda (enemies of the people) branded all those who disagreed with the Kremlin, regardless of the topic or the facts of the matter. Trump's "fake news" label mimics Statlin's "enemies of the people" label, differing only with regard to the nature and extent of retribution each man can exact against those thus baptized. Whereas obtaining that moniker in Stalinist Soviet verisimility typically augured one's literal expiration or imprisonment in a Gulag camp, American democracy constrains the consequences to ones' reputation, though not for lack of trying, for Trump temerariously has indicated his desire to avail himself of governmental power to incarcerate and/or squelch those whom he deems his most effectual opponents. (...And there's literally no telling to what extent Trump has used the USIC as an opposition research organization....We'll see soon enough.)

The vilification of political enemies for being nothing other than that changed when Nikita S. Khrushchev denounced Stalin during a 1956 speech to the Communist Party. Khrushchev dismantled the Gulag camps system, and, perhaps as important, he discarded the vragi naroda appellation. The term itself was retired, largely because Khrushchev considered the hateful language damaging to the USSR’s fragile recovery from Stalin's totalitarianism.

The mentality accompanying ceasing and desisting with "enemy of the people" rhetoric and retribution is central to Trump's being; it was anathema to Khrushchev's. Those character qualities alone, along with their manifestation, fundamentally distinguish the two men. Thus, no, Trump is not the American Khrushchev.

 

[JackA]

The American Khrushchev?

He’s the Kremlin’s man in the White House, if that’s what you mean.

 

[jnug]

If I understand the OP, the implication appears to be that Trump is our Khrushchev. Well you would need to further imply that these current United States are the equivalent of the Soviet Union of the 50's and 60's. That would actually be scarier than Trump being our Khrushchev. So I would say NO, Trump is not our Khrushchev.

I don't see a geopolitical equivalent of the Soviet Union of the 50's and 60's or even of the 70's anywhere in the contemporary context.

Dealing with the inevitable failure of Communism on any sort of level simply put a Soviet Union, a mid-tier power of its era on long term life support. Any country with either middling resources or extensive resources will simply be sucked dry by Communism. Only a country with very limited resources, like Vietnam has a shot at being able to make Communism actually work even over a time horizon as short as a few decades.

There are actually very few truly Communist countries left any more.

 

[Slavister]

Please do tell me how Khruschev's reforms were better than Trump's, comrade. Trump is a capitalist, which clearly rankles you - it's because he's a capitalist that he promotes his brand.

Well, comrade, Khruschev's reforms were attempting to benefit the country. Trump's EOs and appointments only benefit his businesses and his business / contributor connections. I have no problem with businessmen promoting their brand, but that's not a primary responsibility of a President. But I am sure that's lost on you.

 

[Tangmo]

Critics of Trump like to call him crude, ill-mannered, and uncivilized ("Ugh, what is that uncouth guy saying this time? What a caveman!")
People used to say the same about Khruschev ("Look - he's taken off his shoe and is hammering it on the table! What a caveman! What a dumb farmer!")

Khruschev was a reformer.
Many say that Trump is a reformer too.

Khruschev became leader due to a backlash following the rule of Stalin. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin was not a Russian himself, but came from a tiny ethnic minority - he was Georgian.
Coming from the tiny Georgian minority and having to contend with much larger ethnic groups like Russians and Ukrainians, he naturally wanted to build up a huge overpowering state in order to give him the means to grapple with much larger social groups, in order to bring society to heel under his vision.

Trump became POTUS in a backlash against the policies of his predecessor, who was also an ethnic minority. This predecessor likewise wanted to build up an overpowering state to help him stamp his vision onto the wider society, and bring larger uncooperative groups to heel. Eric Holder wasn't as severe as Dherzinsky, but he had some attitudes towards the rest of American society which many deem unhealthy.


And yet what happened to Khruschev in the end? When his far-reaching reforms stumbled, he got prematurely pushed out - his opponents had him put out to pasture.
Trump is engaging in far-reaching reforms too. If these should stumble and the economy runs into serious adversity, then his opponents will likewise pounce, and have him put out to pasture.


What are the risks of this happening?

After Kennedy and his people with Khrushchev and his people created the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 each of 'em was gone soon after it. If Trump has a major foreign policy or national security disaster nothing will save him in the presidency. Especially if Russia gains by it. China also but Russia especially and in particular. If no one gains by it as in 1962 then Trump is a goner from the presidency anyway for stepping into a major mess of foreign policy and national security that also gets us nowhere. Nobody in either country trusted either of 'em after that.

 

[sanman]

Well, comrade, Khruschev's reforms were attempting to benefit the country. Trump's EOs and appointments only benefit his businesses and his business / contributor connections. I have no problem with businessmen promoting their brand, but that's not a primary responsibility of a President. But I am sure that's lost on you.

Trump is promoting Brand America - he says America First

Trump is indeed attempting to benefit his country.
He's restoring sovereignty - how can the loss of sovereignty benefit America?
He's restoring individual liberty by shrinking govt - how can surrendering personal liberty to an unaccountable authority benefit Americans?
He's rebuilding the economy and creating jobs - how can rampant export of jobs benefit America's economy or American workers?
He's rebuilding the military and America's military strength - how can downsizing the military to austere levels benefit American warfighters or America's national security?

The opponents have no such goals to offer, nor ideas to achieve such goals. All they're engaged in is rampant pandering to any special interest group they can get money from. They're a force for Entropy to dissolve America and American values, and they're also a force of ossified rigidity desperately hanging on to outdated wars and their institutions like NATO, which have long outlived their usefulness and have become the tail wagging the dog. America's alliances and relationships are dictated not by its situation or its needs, but instead by who the existing band of coattail-riders are - like some sort of circular rationale (and circus-like, too).

America's Left are cheering for Trump's demise and America's demise along with him.

What we need is a national TARP program - like a divorce - to separate the 2 opposing ideologies from each other, so that each side can be free to pursue its own path according to its beliefs. One side will prevail due to the soundness of its beliefs, while the other side will fail due to the unsoundness of its beliefs. The winner will be vindicated as it prospers and flourishes, while the loser will be beggared, wallowing in misery and repentance.