Municipal Democratic Socialism

[DGS49]

Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George wins Washington, D.C., mayoral primary

NBC News projects Lewis George has won the Democratic nomination, setting her up to manage the capital city and its relationship with President Donald Trump.

www.nbcnews.com

The basics of "socialism" are fairly well known. Private property is abolished, the Sovereign owns not only all property but also the means of production (farms, factories, etc.), workers control how production occurs and how they participate in it, the resources of the society (e.g., food, housing, medical care) are equally available to all, and every citizen is equal.

Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because, among many other things, the Sovereign is not empowered to confiscate property for such uses, not empowered to produce any non-military goods, and in fact not empowered to provide individual benefits to the citizens and/or residents of the country. Democrats, of course, ignore this last one.

As a result, absent a focused group of Constitutional Amendments, the U.S. government cannot implement a socialist regime. But Democrats in Congress, aided by a compliant Supreme Court, have managed to implement numerous policies and programs that have a socialist bent, with the biggest examples being Social Security and Medicare, both of of which are grossly unconstitutional, since Congress lacks the "power" to create or manage them.

But I digress.

Who cares if a municipality wishes to implement LOCAL policies and programs that emulate the "Workers' Paradise"? What if a city wants to build a large number of apartments or houses with city funds and make them available to the citizenry at a minimal cost? So what? What if a city wants to open a chain of supermarkets to operate at - or below - cost, so that the local citizens can buy food at the lowest possible cost? And so on.

Why would that matter to anyone who is not living in that city and/or paying its taxes? As long as MY Federal or State taxes are not subsidizing those programs, they should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't step on the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. I may think that those supermarkets are a stupid, counterproductive idea, but to me it's just entertainment, like watching professional sports.

I don't understand all the fretting about these "Democratic Socialists" getting elected in municipalities around the country.

What I see as a valid concern is the D-S candidates who are getting elected to Congress, and the similar people - usually hiding their personal ideologies - who are being nominated and appointed to the Federal courts. That's where it becomes a problem. As for cities, WGAF?

 

[1srelluc]

Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George wins Washington, D.C., mayoral primary

NBC News projects Lewis George has won the Democratic nomination, setting her up to manage the capital city and its relationship with President Donald Trump.

www.nbcnews.com

The basics of "socialism" are fairly well known. Private property is abolished, the Sovereign owns not only all property but also the means of production (farms, factories, etc.), workers control how production occurs and how they participate in it, the resources of the society (e.g., food, housing, medical care) are equally available to all, and every citizen is equal.

Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because, among many other things, the Sovereign is not empowered to confiscate property for such uses, not empowered to produce any non-military goods, and in fact not empowered to provide individual benefits to the citizens and/or residents of the country. Democrats, of course, ignore this last one.

As a result, absent a focused group of Constitutional Amendments, the U.S. government cannot implement a socialist regime. But Democrats in Congress, aided by a compliant Supreme Court, have managed to implement numerous policies and programs that have a socialist bent, with the biggest examples being Social Security and Medicare, both of of which are grossly unconstitutional, since Congress lacks the "power" to create or manage them.

But I digress.

Who cares if a municipality wishes to implement LOCAL policies and programs that emulate the "Workers' Paradise"? What if a city wants to build a large number of apartments or houses with city funds and make them available to the citizenry at a minimal cost? So what? What if a city wants to open a chain of supermarkets to operate at - or below - cost, so that the local citizens can buy food at the lowest possible cost? And so on.

Why would that matter to anyone who is not living in that city and/or paying its taxes? As long as MY Federal or State taxes are not subsidizing those programs, they should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't step on the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. I may think that those supermarkets are a stupid, counterproductive idea, but to me it's just entertainment, like watching professional sports.

I don't understand all the fretting about these "Democratic Socialists" getting elected in municipalities around the country.

What I see as a valid concern is the D-S candidates who are getting elected to Congress, and the similar people - usually hiding their personal ideologies - who are being nominated and appointed to the Federal courts. That's where it becomes a problem. As for cities, WGAF?

Because most of them in congress get their start in the cities......Come on man, wake up.

 

[j-mac]

Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George wins Washington, D.C., mayoral primary

NBC News projects Lewis George has won the Democratic nomination, setting her up to manage the capital city and its relationship with President Donald Trump.

www.nbcnews.com

The basics of "socialism" are fairly well known. Private property is abolished, the Sovereign owns not only all property but also the means of production (farms, factories, etc.), workers control how production occurs and how they participate in it, the resources of the society (e.g., food, housing, medical care) are equally available to all, and every citizen is equal.

Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because, among many other things, the Sovereign is not empowered to confiscate property for such uses, not empowered to produce any non-military goods, and in fact not empowered to provide individual benefits to the citizens and/or residents of the country. Democrats, of course, ignore this last one.

As a result, absent a focused group of Constitutional Amendments, the U.S. government cannot implement a socialist regime. But Democrats in Congress, aided by a compliant Supreme Court, have managed to implement numerous policies and programs that have a socialist bent, with the biggest examples being Social Security and Medicare, both of of which are grossly unconstitutional, since Congress lacks the "power" to create or manage them.

But I digress.

Who cares if a municipality wishes to implement LOCAL policies and programs that emulate the "Workers' Paradise"? What if a city wants to build a large number of apartments or houses with city funds and make them available to the citizenry at a minimal cost? So what? What if a city wants to open a chain of supermarkets to operate at - or below - cost, so that the local citizens can buy food at the lowest possible cost? And so on.

Why would that matter to anyone who is not living in that city and/or paying its taxes? As long as MY Federal or State taxes are not subsidizing those programs, they should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't step on the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. I may think that those supermarkets are a stupid, counterproductive idea, but to me it's just entertainment, like watching professional sports.

I don't understand all the fretting about these "Democratic Socialists" getting elected in municipalities around the country.

What I see as a valid concern is the D-S candidates who are getting elected to Congress, and the similar people - usually hiding their personal ideologies - who are being nominated and appointed to the Federal courts. That's where it becomes a problem. As for cities, WGAF?

Cities are subsidized by the federal government.

 

[sparky]

As for cities, WGAF?

because they'll eventually devolve into poverty, crime and drug abuse DGS

and spread like a disease

this man WAS mayor of Burlington Vermont>>>>

Bernie is a socialist democrat , heavy on the 'socialist' part

Burlington was a nice college town, now the VT state police are there, trying to maintain some level of order.....

Since that time the 'disease' spread to the state house, and have been legislated many times over towards the remaining residents of VT

They (D supermajority) now have control of our land, our farms, our businesses, our educational system, our energy use......the list goes on and on.......while our taxes have gone up 40% in the last few years because of it

All because they've buffaloed those constituents who apparently did poorly in history class

~S~

 

[sparky]

One would think , especially on the eve of our 250th, to have some respect for our construct......~S~

 

[berg80]

Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George wins Washington, D.C., mayoral primary

NBC News projects Lewis George has won the Democratic nomination, setting her up to manage the capital city and its relationship with President Donald Trump.

www.nbcnews.com

The basics of "socialism" are fairly well known. Private property is abolished, the Sovereign owns not only all property but also the means of production (farms, factories, etc.), workers control how production occurs and how they participate in it, the resources of the society (e.g., food, housing, medical care) are equally available to all, and every citizen is equal.

Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because, among many other things, the Sovereign is not empowered to confiscate property for such uses, not empowered to produce any non-military goods, and in fact not empowered to provide individual benefits to the citizens and/or residents of the country. Democrats, of course, ignore this last one.

As a result, absent a focused group of Constitutional Amendments, the U.S. government cannot implement a socialist regime. But Democrats in Congress, aided by a compliant Supreme Court, have managed to implement numerous policies and programs that have a socialist bent, with the biggest examples being Social Security and Medicare, both of of which are grossly unconstitutional, since Congress lacks the "power" to create or manage them.

But I digress.

Who cares if a municipality wishes to implement LOCAL policies and programs that emulate the "Workers' Paradise"? What if a city wants to build a large number of apartments or houses with city funds and make them available to the citizenry at a minimal cost? So what? What if a city wants to open a chain of supermarkets to operate at - or below - cost, so that the local citizens can buy food at the lowest possible cost? And so on.

Why would that matter to anyone who is not living in that city and/or paying its taxes? As long as MY Federal or State taxes are not subsidizing those programs, they should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't step on the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. I may think that those supermarkets are a stupid, counterproductive idea, but to me it's just entertainment, like watching professional sports.

I don't understand all the fretting about these "Democratic Socialists" getting elected in municipalities around the country.

What I see as a valid concern is the D-S candidates who are getting elected to Congress, and the similar people - usually hiding their personal ideologies - who are being nominated and appointed to the Federal courts. That's where it becomes a problem. As for cities, WGAF?

Trump told reporters at the White House this month that “we won’t put up with it” if Lewis George won and that he would consider a federal takeover of Washington. (Hey Don, GFY)

Lewis George said in a statement in response: “Threatening Home Rule because you do not like how residents vote is an attack on democracy itself. The people of D.C. elect the mayor of D.C. And they want someone who will stand up to Donald Trump.”

While Trump loomed over the race, local issues took center stage, as the candidates discussed plans to lower crime and promote affordability, especially with regard to housing.

OMG! She wants to lower crime and promote affordability. Run for the hills, hide in the basement! The commies are coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sparky]

OMG! She wants to lower crime and promote affordability. Run for the hills, hide in the basement! The commies are coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hide yer wallet too Berg........ ~S~

 

[ColonelAngus]

California FREAKED OUT when Trump threatened to pull FEDERAL SUBSIDIES.

WHY SHOULD MY FEDERAL TAX MONEY FROM MY HARD WORK GO TO SUBSIDIZE STUPID SPENDING IN CALIFORNIA?

Specifically, why should I, COLONELANGUS, PAY FOR THE CALIFORNIA FAILED HIGH SPEED RAIL?

 

[Hafar1014]

because they'll eventually devolve into poverty, crime and drug abuse DGS

and spread like a disease

this man WAS mayor of Burlington Vermont>>>>
View attachment 1270828

Bernie is a socialist democrat , heavy on the 'socialist' part

Burlington was a nice college town, now the VT state police are there, trying to maintain some level of order.....

Since that time the 'disease' spread to the state house, and have been legislated many times over towards the remaining residents of VT

They (D supermajority) now have control of our land, our farms, our businesses, our educational system, our energy use......the list goes on and on.......while our taxes have gone up 40% in the last few years because of it

All because they've buffaloed those constituents who apparently did poorly in history class

~S~

Sanders is a communist

 

[sparky]

Sanders is a communist

At the risk of revealing my red neck............old hippie Hafar....~S~

 

[ColonelAngus]

If a municipality wants to be communist AND DOES NOT NEED ANY OUTSIDE TAX SUBSIDIES, knock yourselves out.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George wins Washington, D.C., mayoral primary

NBC News projects Lewis George has won the Democratic nomination, setting her up to manage the capital city and its relationship with President Donald Trump.

www.nbcnews.com

The basics of "socialism" are fairly well known. Private property is abolished, the Sovereign owns not only all property but also the means of production (farms, factories, etc.), workers control how production occurs and how they participate in it, the resources of the society (e.g., food, housing, medical care) are equally available to all, and every citizen is equal.

Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because, among many other things, the Sovereign is not empowered to confiscate property for such uses, not empowered to produce any non-military goods, and in fact not empowered to provide individual benefits to the citizens and/or residents of the country. Democrats, of course, ignore this last one.

As a result, absent a focused group of Constitutional Amendments, the U.S. government cannot implement a socialist regime. But Democrats in Congress, aided by a compliant Supreme Court, have managed to implement numerous policies and programs that have a socialist bent, with the biggest examples being Social Security and Medicare, both of of which are grossly unconstitutional, since Congress lacks the "power" to create or manage them.

But I digress.

Who cares if a municipality wishes to implement LOCAL policies and programs that emulate the "Workers' Paradise"? What if a city wants to build a large number of apartments or houses with city funds and make them available to the citizenry at a minimal cost? So what? What if a city wants to open a chain of supermarkets to operate at - or below - cost, so that the local citizens can buy food at the lowest possible cost? And so on.

Why would that matter to anyone who is not living in that city and/or paying its taxes? As long as MY Federal or State taxes are not subsidizing those programs, they should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't step on the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. I may think that those supermarkets are a stupid, counterproductive idea, but to me it's just entertainment, like watching professional sports.

I don't understand all the fretting about these "Democratic Socialists" getting elected in municipalities around the country.

What I see as a valid concern is the D-S candidates who are getting elected to Congress, and the similar people - usually hiding their personal ideologies - who are being nominated and appointed to the Federal courts. That's where it becomes a problem. As for cities, WGAF?

If Trump fails this term, socialism will be his replacement

 

[sparky]

well Col., they'll eventually exhaust their local resources , then what?

~S~

 

[ColonelAngus]

well Col., they'll eventually exhaust their local resources , then what?

~S~

Spend less.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

well Col., they'll eventually exhaust their local resources , then what?

~S~

That's why Socialism always fails. They run out of other's money

 

[sparky]

That's why Socialism always fails. They run out of other's money

repetitively.......after convincing folks that 'free shit' exists.....

~S~

 

[SassyIrishLass]

repetitively.......after convincing folks that 'free shit' exists.....

View attachment 1270841
~S~

Nothing is ever free. Someone is paying for it