What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An Op Ed for the two party supporters

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,249
Points
178

I'm not going to argue there is anything good about the Republican Party because there isn't.

But not supporting Republicans is insane now that Democrats have gone squarely into fascism silencing opposition with threats, intimidation and violence and Democrats are just stealing elections. When your boat is sinking, the first thing you focus on is plugging the hole, not redoing the décor

There's no sanity in supporting either of these parties. They're both wings of the same bird. Or anyone particular politician, at this point.
I'm a conservative (not a republican). Conservatism isn't actually allowed in the Republican party any longer. Oh sure, they give lip service to it. Pretend to promote it. But when they chips are down, they reject it every time.
During Trumps first two years of office, with a GOP majority in the House and Senate, was there spending cuts? Nope. They increased spending. Did they abolish abortion? Nope. In fact they gave millions to planned parenthood. Did they repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope. They continued to fund it.

Die hard Trump supporters and republicans will blame the democrats, even though the GOP had the majority. Now think about that. The GOP had the majority, and still blame the democrats. This is brainwashing material. Just like "democrats are worse than republicans" is brainwashing material.

Proof: All those details in the bills that both parties pass, that most people (including myself now a days) don't bother to read. If all you armchair republicans and democrats would start paying more attention to what your party does, and not so much what it says, you'd understand just how brainwashed you really are. And what fools you're making of yourselves.
What happened with Trump is exactly what Harry Browne predicted way back in 1995.....The democrats' lies about being defenders of civil liberties and against international warmongering, and the republicans' lies about being for smaller gubmint and fiscal restraint, would be laid bare.....They would join forces to oppose anyone and everyone who would dare to stand up to their totalitarian agenda.

Now, imperfect a vehicle as Trump was and is, he still exposed the uniparty for what it is....As a bonus, he also exposed the fake news media -including Fox- for the craven cowardly mob of cultural Marxists that they are.

Horribly flawed as populism is, it's the only available vehicle at hand to of the globalist/fascist iceberg in our ship's path.....That's not approval, just telling the reality of the situation like it is.
You show some ability to understand political systems, but then you just turn to jumping into wrong conclusions.

Encouraging though in your coming to understand Trump's flaws

Now, imperfect a vehicle as Trump was and is, ...............

The cracks in the Trump supporters' armor are beginning to show when extremists air doubts!
I understand more than you'll ever know, lying ass snow Meskin.
I would rate you in the top third on this forum for knowing a lot.
Ask me how many fucks I give about your rating of me.
You'll need to deal with your rage before I bother to run you anymore today.
So for now I'll leave you to telling me about 'how many fucks'.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
14,981
Reaction score
4,478
Points
265
Location
New Mexico

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,249
Points
178
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.

Government has fucked up our medical system and driven medical costs to ridiculous levels. It's insane to say let's let the cause of the problem run it.

We need to get government OUT of medical care, not expand it. They are inept and greedy.

Why would you ever say a problem is so bad that the solution is to turn it over to people who are guaranteed to make it worse?
Government health care systems in the world are all rated as superior to America's.

You Americans just can't continue to make up your shit!
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,663
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I would have been zero for seven if the Libertarian Party hadn't stopped nominating actual libertarians.
It's been infiltrated by lefties and has become a sept of the Dem party to siphon votes from the dog-shit GOP.
Excuses for selling out and supporting Trump. Sad.

We're not like you. We don't support radical totalitarian leftists.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You aren't a Democrat even though you spend almost all your time on the site parroting their talking points.

Trump's policies weren't very good and the ones that were didn't go far enough. But he did one thing with radical leftist fascism and racism and stealing elections that you keep making excuses for. Trump fought back.

At this point the best thing we can do for our liberty is fight the left. And you still struggle to figure out how you are different from them. Leftists on the board don't know how you're different from them either

So you don't like the democratic party line.
Fine, I don't either.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been
Left, progressive, and liberal means anti-war, regulating banks, regulating corporations, and public financed joint social obligations like health care, education, transportation, etc.

You used "totalitarian" and "fascist", but those terms only refer to right wing policies of an oligarchy. They do not apply to left wing political beliefs. Left wing means low level, local, populist government that emphasizes individual rights and liberties.
Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
whoa cogent, and here I am leaving. And yes, some of us preferred just ending the tax deductions to employers for health care, and raising the revenue to just provide each person a tax credit to purchase HC or insurance or a combination with some form of old age/catastrophic care in traditional public health.
End tax deductions for employers????....NO!...Extend the tax deduction to freelance 1099 contractors, who get no such deduction.

And yo can forget about catistrophic-only coverage....Your Boiking made that coverage illegal, for all intents and purposes.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
14,981
Reaction score
4,478
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
I would have been zero for seven if the Libertarian Party hadn't stopped nominating actual libertarians.
It's been infiltrated by lefties and has become a sept of the Dem party to siphon votes from the dog-shit GOP.
Excuses for selling out and supporting Trump. Sad.

We're not like you. We don't support radical totalitarian leftists.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You aren't a Democrat even though you spend almost all your time on the site parroting their talking points.

Trump's policies weren't very good and the ones that were didn't go far enough. But he did one thing with radical leftist fascism and racism and stealing elections that you keep making excuses for. Trump fought back.

At this point the best thing we can do for our liberty is fight the left. And you still struggle to figure out how you are different from them. Leftists on the board don't know how you're different from them either

So you don't like the democratic party line.
Fine, I don't either.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been
Left, progressive, and liberal means anti-war, regulating banks, regulating corporations, and public financed joint social obligations like health care, education, transportation, etc.

You used "totalitarian" and "fascist", but those terms only refer to right wing policies of an oligarchy. They do not apply to left wing political beliefs. Left wing means low level, local, populist government that emphasizes individual rights and liberties.
Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.


Well, DUUUUH!... Why the hell did you think that I said that they would want to offload that burden onto the taxpayer?

Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.

That's because it's rationed by central planners....Your claim that it is "fairer" is non sequitur and irrelevant to anything.

No country in the world has a problem of public health care being "rationed".
If a person breaks a leg, the public hospital is going to turn them away because they already had their quota of broken legs?
The doctors decide if procedures are necessary or not if you have a public health care system.
It is private health insurance that denies medical procedures, not public health care.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,663
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
Historically all dictators have always been right wing.

Staln, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, the Kim family, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Salvado Allende, Daniel Ortega.....ALL noted hard right wingers! :auiqs.jpg:
 
  • Funny
Reactions: kaz

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,249
Points
178

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
GM definitely would like to not have the competition of Ford or Chrysler, and others too.
American style capitalism is all about facilitating the takeover of competitors.

It's not working anymore.
China's system that show concern for the working people is working!
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,249
Points
178
I would have been zero for seven if the Libertarian Party hadn't stopped nominating actual libertarians.
It's been infiltrated by lefties and has become a sept of the Dem party to siphon votes from the dog-shit GOP.
Excuses for selling out and supporting Trump. Sad.

We're not like you. We don't support radical totalitarian leftists.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You aren't a Democrat even though you spend almost all your time on the site parroting their talking points.

Trump's policies weren't very good and the ones that were didn't go far enough. But he did one thing with radical leftist fascism and racism and stealing elections that you keep making excuses for. Trump fought back.

At this point the best thing we can do for our liberty is fight the left. And you still struggle to figure out how you are different from them. Leftists on the board don't know how you're different from them either

So you don't like the democratic party line.
Fine, I don't either.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been
Left, progressive, and liberal means anti-war, regulating banks, regulating corporations, and public financed joint social obligations like health care, education, transportation, etc.

You used "totalitarian" and "fascist", but those terms only refer to right wing policies of an oligarchy. They do not apply to left wing political beliefs. Left wing means low level, local, populist government that emphasizes individual rights and liberties.
Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.


Well, DUUUUH!... Why the hell did you think that I said that they would want to offload that burden onto the taxpayer?

Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.

That's because it's rationed by central planners....Your claim that it is "fairer" is non sequitur and irrelevant to anything.

No country in the world has a problem of public health care being "rationed".
If a person breaks a leg, the public hospital is going to turn them away because they already had their quota of broken legs?
The doctors decide if procedures are necessary or not if you have a public health care system.
It is private health insurance that denies medical procedures, not public health care.
You're confusing terms.
American doctors will turn to expensive MRI's etc. when in most cases a cost effective x-ray does all that is needed.

It's for profit's sake of course. No wonder America's HC system is so fukked up.

And no wonder neither political party denies that!
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
14,981
Reaction score
4,478
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Parties are bad.
They lie and suppress by manipulating large hidden funding.

I don't agree. On either count. Parties aren't innately bad. And there's nothing wrong with "hidden funding".

The problem is the way we do our elections. The rules actually encourage division and partisan rancor, and they make it all but impossible for third parties to gain traction.

Here is an example of how parties are innately bad.
Say you have very popular candidates who likely do well in an open election, like Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders.
Both are democrats, but have huge republican supporters.
The party cuts them off automatically, even though they not only would have better chances of winning than Hillary, but vastly more popular.

Hidden funding is bad because parties can buy up air time and prevent other candidates from being heard.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,376
Reaction score
7,055
Points
1,830
China's system that show concern for the working people is working!

This is totally off topic, but I have to ask - you're kidding, right?
 
OP
YoursTruly

YoursTruly

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
605
Points
200
You show some ability to understand political systems, but then you just turn to jumping into wrong conclusions.

Encouraging though in your coming to understand Trump's flaws

I understood Trumps flaws even before the democrat voters did. Back when democrat voters didn't see Trump as having a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president.

My conclusions are just that. Mine. I welcome being proven wrong. As long as it's actually proof.
I've been a democrat, a republican and was a Libertarian, more recently. But I'm not owned by any party, group or organization at this point. I'm just a conservative now.

"What you do means a whole lot more than anything you've got to say."
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,663
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays

I'm not going to argue there is anything good about the Republican Party because there isn't.

But not supporting Republicans is insane now that Democrats have gone squarely into fascism silencing opposition with threats, intimidation and violence and Democrats are just stealing elections. When your boat is sinking, the first thing you focus on is plugging the hole, not redoing the décor

There's no sanity in supporting either of these parties. They're both wings of the same bird. Or anyone particular politician, at this point.
I'm a conservative (not a republican). Conservatism isn't actually allowed in the Republican party any longer. Oh sure, they give lip service to it. Pretend to promote it. But when they chips are down, they reject it every time.
During Trumps first two years of office, with a GOP majority in the House and Senate, was there spending cuts? Nope. They increased spending. Did they abolish abortion? Nope. In fact they gave millions to planned parenthood. Did they repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope. They continued to fund it.

Die hard Trump supporters and republicans will blame the democrats, even though the GOP had the majority. Now think about that. The GOP had the majority, and still blame the democrats. This is brainwashing material. Just like "democrats are worse than republicans" is brainwashing material.

Proof: All those details in the bills that both parties pass, that most people (including myself now a days) don't bother to read. If all you armchair republicans and democrats would start paying more attention to what your party does, and not so much what it says, you'd understand just how brainwashed you really are. And what fools you're making of yourselves.
What happened with Trump is exactly what Harry Browne predicted way back in 1995.....The democrats' lies about being defenders of civil liberties and against international warmongering, and the republicans' lies about being for smaller gubmint and fiscal restraint, would be laid bare.....They would join forces to oppose anyone and everyone who would dare to stand up to their totalitarian agenda.

Now, imperfect a vehicle as Trump was and is, he still exposed the uniparty for what it is....As a bonus, he also exposed the fake news media -including Fox- for the craven cowardly mob of cultural Marxists that they are.

Horribly flawed as populism is, it's the only available vehicle at hand to of the globalist/fascist iceberg in our ship's path.....That's not approval, just telling the reality of the situation like it is.
You show some ability to understand political systems, but then you just turn to jumping into wrong conclusions.

Encouraging though in your coming to understand Trump's flaws

Now, imperfect a vehicle as Trump was and is, ...............

The cracks in the Trump supporters' armor are beginning to show when extremists air doubts!
I understand more than you'll ever know, lying ass snow Meskin.
I would rate you in the top third on this forum for knowing a lot.
Ask me how many fucks I give about your rating of me.
You'll need to deal with your rage before I bother to run you anymore today.
So for now I'll leave you to telling me about 'how many fucks'.
Eat a bag of dicks, you compulsive lying jackass.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,376
Reaction score
7,055
Points
1,830
Parties are bad.
They lie and suppress by manipulating large hidden funding.

I don't agree. On either count. Parties aren't innately bad. And there's nothing wrong with "hidden funding".

The problem is the way we do our elections. The rules actually encourage division and partisan rancor, and they make it all but impossible for third parties to gain traction.

Here is an example of how parties are innately bad.
Say you have very popular candidates who likely do well in an open election, like Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders.
Both are democrats, but have huge republican supporters.
The party cuts them off automatically, even though they not only would have better chances of winning than Hillary, but vastly more popular.

I don't see that problem as innate to parties - it's our winner-take-all, plurality voting that causes that.

Hidden funding is bad because parties can buy up air time and prevent other candidates from being heard.

"Air time" isn't a limited commodity. One party buying lots of advertising doesn't prevent others from being heard.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,249
Points
178
I would have been zero for seven if the Libertarian Party hadn't stopped nominating actual libertarians.
It's been infiltrated by lefties and has become a sept of the Dem party to siphon votes from the dog-shit GOP.
Excuses for selling out and supporting Trump. Sad.

We're not like you. We don't support radical totalitarian leftists.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You aren't a Democrat even though you spend almost all your time on the site parroting their talking points.

Trump's policies weren't very good and the ones that were didn't go far enough. But he did one thing with radical leftist fascism and racism and stealing elections that you keep making excuses for. Trump fought back.

At this point the best thing we can do for our liberty is fight the left. And you still struggle to figure out how you are different from them. Leftists on the board don't know how you're different from them either

So you don't like the democratic party line.
Fine, I don't either.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been
Left, progressive, and liberal means anti-war, regulating banks, regulating corporations, and public financed joint social obligations like health care, education, transportation, etc.

You used "totalitarian" and "fascist", but those terms only refer to right wing policies of an oligarchy. They do not apply to left wing political beliefs. Left wing means low level, local, populist government that emphasizes individual rights and liberties.
Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
whoa cogent, and here I am leaving. And yes, some of us preferred just ending the tax deductions to employers for health care, and raising the revenue to just provide each person a tax credit to purchase HC or insurance or a combination with some form of old age/catastrophic care in traditional public health.
End tax deductions for employers????....NO!...Extend the tax deduction to freelance 1099 contractors, who get no such deduction.

And yo can forget about catistrophic-only coverage....Your Boiking made that coverage illegal, for all intents and purposes.
But what about America's HC system being rated as the poorest in the modern industrialized world?

And for some proof of it's failure, Trump said he was going to fix it.

But sadly the only fix from Trump would have been a betrayal of his big money contributors.

Maybe next time sweetcheeks!
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
14,981
Reaction score
4,478
Points
265
Location
New Mexico

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
Historically all dictators have always been right wing.

Staln, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, the Kim family, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Salvado Allende, Daniel Ortega.....ALL noted hard right wingers! :auiqs.jpg:

YES! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Kim family, were all extremely right wing.
If Stalin were not right wing, then he would not have killed all the communists and socialists.
These are all Stalinists and implemented State Capitalism.

Ho Chi Minh was neither right nor left, and was just trying to liberate Vietnam from the French, right wing, colonial imperialists.
Salvador Allende was extremely popular and democratically elected.
So was Daniel Ortega.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,249
Points
178

I'm not going to argue there is anything good about the Republican Party because there isn't.

But not supporting Republicans is insane now that Democrats have gone squarely into fascism silencing opposition with threats, intimidation and violence and Democrats are just stealing elections. When your boat is sinking, the first thing you focus on is plugging the hole, not redoing the décor

There's no sanity in supporting either of these parties. They're both wings of the same bird. Or anyone particular politician, at this point.
I'm a conservative (not a republican). Conservatism isn't actually allowed in the Republican party any longer. Oh sure, they give lip service to it. Pretend to promote it. But when they chips are down, they reject it every time.
During Trumps first two years of office, with a GOP majority in the House and Senate, was there spending cuts? Nope. They increased spending. Did they abolish abortion? Nope. In fact they gave millions to planned parenthood. Did they repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope. They continued to fund it.

Die hard Trump supporters and republicans will blame the democrats, even though the GOP had the majority. Now think about that. The GOP had the majority, and still blame the democrats. This is brainwashing material. Just like "democrats are worse than republicans" is brainwashing material.

Proof: All those details in the bills that both parties pass, that most people (including myself now a days) don't bother to read. If all you armchair republicans and democrats would start paying more attention to what your party does, and not so much what it says, you'd understand just how brainwashed you really are. And what fools you're making of yourselves.
What happened with Trump is exactly what Harry Browne predicted way back in 1995.....The democrats' lies about being defenders of civil liberties and against international warmongering, and the republicans' lies about being for smaller gubmint and fiscal restraint, would be laid bare.....They would join forces to oppose anyone and everyone who would dare to stand up to their totalitarian agenda.

Now, imperfect a vehicle as Trump was and is, he still exposed the uniparty for what it is....As a bonus, he also exposed the fake news media -including Fox- for the craven cowardly mob of cultural Marxists that they are.

Horribly flawed as populism is, it's the only available vehicle at hand to of the globalist/fascist iceberg in our ship's path.....That's not approval, just telling the reality of the situation like it is.
You show some ability to understand political systems, but then you just turn to jumping into wrong conclusions.

Encouraging though in your coming to understand Trump's flaws

Now, imperfect a vehicle as Trump was and is, ...............

The cracks in the Trump supporters' armor are beginning to show when extremists air doubts!
I understand more than you'll ever know, lying ass snow Meskin.
I would rate you in the top third on this forum for knowing a lot.
Ask me how many fucks I give about your rating of me.
You'll need to deal with your rage before I bother to run you anymore today.
So for now I'll leave you to telling me about 'how many fucks'.
Eat a bag of dicks, you compulsive lying jackass.
Look into some anger and rage control.
It's only you that's starting to melt down.
 
OP
YoursTruly

YoursTruly

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
605
Points
200
You're confusing terms.
American doctors will turn to expensive MRI's etc. when in most cases a cost effective x-ray does all that is needed.

It's for profit's sake of course. No wonder America's HC system is so fukked up.

And no wonder neither political party denies that!

When a doctor bills an insurance company or Medicare/Medicaid, they don't get paid what they bill. Example: A $2500 procedure billed to Blue Cross, will pay them about $150 or less. In fact, Medicare pays better than most insurance companies.
My knee surgery was billed over $200,000. For the surgery, the hospital care and everything involved, BC/BS paid only $1600.
So doctors and hospitals have to overbill and see way more patients than they should, to maintain a decent profit.
 
OP
YoursTruly

YoursTruly

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
605
Points
200
Look into some anger and rage control.
It's only you that's starting to melt down.

Please take me out of this. I'm getting alerts for a conversation I'm no longer a part of.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,249
Points
178

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
Historically all dictators have always been right wing.

Staln, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, the Kim family, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Salvado Allende, Daniel Ortega.....ALL noted hard right wingers! :auiqs.jpg:

YES! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Kim family, were all extremely right wing.
If Stalin were not right wing, then he would not have killed all the communists and socialists.
These are all Stalinists and implemented State Capitalism.

Ho Chi Minh was neither right nor left, and was just trying to liberate Vietnam from the French, right wing, colonial imperialists.
Salvador Allende was extremely popular and democratically elected.
So was Daniel Ortega.
Ho Chi Minh won his war and then had a city named after him.
It's always going to be a long and hard fight for a country's people to overcome US imperialism.

I'm betting on young leader Kim now that he has the nuclear deterrent to US aggression.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
14,981
Reaction score
4,478
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Parties are bad.
They lie and suppress by manipulating large hidden funding.

I don't agree. On either count. Parties aren't innately bad. And there's nothing wrong with "hidden funding".

The problem is the way we do our elections. The rules actually encourage division and partisan rancor, and they make it all but impossible for third parties to gain traction.

Here is an example of how parties are innately bad.
Say you have very popular candidates who likely do well in an open election, like Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders.
Both are democrats, but have huge republican supporters.
The party cuts them off automatically, even though they not only would have better chances of winning than Hillary, but vastly more popular.

I don't see that problem as innate to parties - it's our winner-take-all, plurality voting that causes that.

Hidden funding is bad because parties can buy up air time and prevent other candidates from being heard.

"Air time" isn't a limited commodity. One party buying lots of advertising doesn't prevent others from being heard.

No, it is not "winner take all" that I am referring to, although I agree that is also something bad that a parliamentary system could fix.
What I am saying is that by parties being rigged and before the final election, then can prevent the most popular candidates from ever being heard from.

As for "being heard", you missed the point.
It is not one party preventing the other party from being heard that is the problem.
The problem is that since almost all the donations go to the party instead of the individual candidates, the party decides who get heard within the party. For example, Hillary was extremely unpopular with voters, but the DNC prevented anyone hearing what Sanders or Gabbard had to say.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top