You can't get a little pregnant - and you can't vote in just a little Socialism

[rightwinger]

bot socialism is fundamentally incompatible with free markets. Putting government in charge of our economic decisions is the entire point of socialism.

The Government has always been responsible for ensuring a level playing field in our economy and enforcing the laws..
Free market needs its checks and balances.

 

[dblack]

So not.

Sorry for the attitude. But you're just too much of a partisan **** to deal with.

Be specific??? GO FUCK YOURSELF. You're not a quiz master and I'm not here to address your demands.

Please resume your partisan circle jerk and leave me out of it.

 

[dblack]

The Government has always been responsible for ensuring a level playing field in our economy and enforcing the laws..
Free market needs its checks and balances.

Socialism is fundamentally incompatible with free markets. The more socialism you inject, the less free the markets are. You can put your fingers in your ears and do the denial dance, but that's built in to the definition of the words. Which is why you're forever trying to redefine them.

 

[berg80]

How is it you got to such a fucking idiot troll? Be specific. Provide examples. Show your work.

It appears you want us to blindly accept your premise without specific substantiation. Kinda like what Repubs do with every idiotic utterance that comes out of Don's mouth.

 

[dblack]

It appears you want us to blindly accept your premise without specific substantiation.

Nah. I just don't have much patience with trolling. Very few of you are here for actual discussion. But that's how it goes.

 

[rightwinger]

Socialism is fundamentally incompatible with free markets. The more socialism you inject, the less free the markets are. You can put your fingers in your ears and do the denial dance, but that's built in to the definition of the words. Which is why you're forever trying to redefine them.

And Free Markets don’t work without Government oversight
Monopolies are free market but not good for the nation. So are many other free market business practices

 

[Skylar]

Sorry for the attitude. But you're just too much of a partisan **** to deal with.

Be specific??? GO FUCK YOURSELF. You're not a quiz master and I'm not here to address your demands.

Please resume your partisan circle jerk and leave me out of it.

The premise of the thread is invalid. Either there is no socialism (by your strict definition). Or there is a little socialism already. Disproving the premise that you can't have only a little.

You like getting litigious. But you kinda crumble under your own standards.

Either way, the thread is moot, friend.

 

[berg80]

Nah. I just don't have much patience with trolling. Very few of you are here for actual discussion. But that's how it goes.

Well, that sounds like you are tap dancing around the matter of giving substance to.....well.....anything you've asserted. Trolling is not questioning the validity of your comments. So, the floor is yours.

 

[dblack]

Well, that sounds like you are tap dancing around the matter of giving substance to.....well.....anything you've asserted.

Totally. It's a complete waste of time. Most people are only here to cheer for their team in the culture war. There's no debate. No open-minded discussion of ideas. Just gotchas and insults. It gets tiresome, don't you think?

 

[berg80]

Totally. It's a complete waste of time. Most people are here to cheer for their team in the culture war. There's no debate. No open-minded discussion of ideas. Just gotchas and insults. It gets tiresome, don't you think?

I completely agree. It's a constant frustration of mine. But there was a discussion developing about the degree to which socialist concepts have been successfully adopted by the US. That we have regulated capitalism here which could be defined as quasi-socialistic to some extent. So I think you need to be willing to offer some details regarding what exactly you fear from a Harris admin with respect to her plans for the economy.

 

[berg80]

The point being the type of economy with have is not binary as being pregnant is.

 

[rightwinger]

But there was a discussion developing about the degree to which socialist concepts have been successfully adopted by the US.

During WWII, the US was near total Socialism

The Government told manufacturers what they could make, who they could hire, what they could pay, what they could charge, what resources they could have
Consumers were told what they could buy

It worked

 

[Skylar]

Well, that sounds like you are tap dancing around the matter of giving substance to.....well.....anything you've asserted. Trolling is not questioning the validity of your comments. So, the floor is yours.

That's exactly what's happening. My question was completely reasonable. When he said 'I don't think so' to my conclusion that the thread was invalid as there was no socialism per that definition, I asked him for specific examples of Harris or Biden proposed policies that would meet that definition of socialism.

Pretty reasonable, ya?

And dblack lost his shit. All caps screaming, cursing, name calling, a full-on panty-shitting meltdown.

But......not a single connection to reality. Not a single example of a proposed policy by Biden or Harris that would meet that strict definition of socialism.

I think its pretty clear what sparked the meltdown. It wasn't the question. It was his utterly inability to answer it.

 

[rightwinger]

The point being the type of economy with have is not binary as being pregnant is.

No economy is pure Capitalism or pure Socialism

 

[Skylar]

Use that strict definition of socialism, the thread fails. As nothing that Biden or Harris has proposed meets that strict definition.

Loosen the definition of socialism to its more common usage, the thread fails. As there are plenty of examples of socialism that we already have. Debunking the idea that you can't have a little bit of socialism.

Either way, this thread is moot.

 

[otto105]

"You can't get a little pregnant"... part of Lou Manheim's wisdom in Wall Street


And just like you can't get a little pregnant --- you can't vote in just a little Socialism. If you give these people (Biden, and now Kamala Harris) an inch, they will take a mile. They will stack the supreme court, they may confiscate firearms (and no, this isn't a conspiracy theory - the Marxist is on tape, saying she will do it), they will redistribute money (most of it going to their voters), they will continue to flood the country with illegal aliens, they will shut down what is left of free speech. Don't believe me? Look what they did in 2020 -- Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that they pressured Facebook to censor speech.

We are either going to go full blown Socialism, with no recovering, or we aren't.

Your choice.

Real hilarious fascist.

One can one be a little pregnant and fascist though.

 

[otto105]

Use that strict definition of socialism, the thread fails. As nothing that Biden or Harris has proposed meets that strict definition.

Loosen the definition of socialism to its more common usage, the thread fails. As there are plenty of examples of socialism that we already have. Debunking the idea that you can't have a little bit of socialism.

Either way, this thread is moot.

It's just another maga whiner thread.

 

[dblack]

I completely agree. It's a constant frustration of mine. But there was a discussion developing about the degree to which socialist concepts have been successfully adopted by the US. That we have regulated capitalism here which could be defined as quasi-socialistic to some extent. So I think you need to be willing to offer some details regarding what exactly you fear from a Harris admin with respect to her plans for the economy.

Fair enough. So far her proposals have been light on details. The few things she has mentioned, however, are classic socialist wedge issues - more public funding for housing and expanding government price controls. ($25k free money for home buyers and her "price gouging" initiative")

Other than that, I'm going mostly by the Dems '24 platform:

Featured prominently is the progressive buzzword "equity", which of course requires ever more state intervention to determine what is "equitable" and make it so. A text scan of their platform reveals the word "equity" appears fourteen times. "Equal rights" appears only once, and that's in reference to the euphemistically named "Equal Rights Amendment", which has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with, you guessed it, equity.

Of course they continue to seek expansion of federal control of health care and health insurance. And Harris has been pretty upfront with her goal of socializing health insurance (single payer) - she'd like to see private health insurance companies banned altogether.

And then there's the usual socialist fixation on class, with promises to reward "working families" and punish the wealthy.

But ... while many people in the party ARE pushing for socialism, and will openly acknowledge that, the party leadership is not so much socialist as much as it is corporatist, which is agnostic with regard to economic system. They throw around socialist agenda items to satiate the progressives, but mostly they're just interested in power.

And if you want to "... but Trump" me, I can only agree. Republicans offer precious little opposition to the expansion of state power and frankly, if Trump had proposed any of the above policies, his supporters would be all over it.

 

[CrazyTrader55]

Real hilarious fascist.

One can one be a little pregnant and fascist though.

Dumbest post I've seen all day.

 

[initforme]

Social security isn't even a hint of socialism. Neither is medicare. Asking people to work longer will destroy the economy. We need people retiring before 55, not after.