I still vote D, but ...

[TurtleDude]

There shouldn't be such a gap anywhere.

start with entertainers and athletes then. Someone like Julia Roberts or Kevin Costner often makes more than the rest of the cast in a film they are in

 

[HIP56948]

Don't disagree with any of them.

 

[Antiwar]

That’s not true.
im not talking about socialism in the sense of a state providing public services, which is not socialism, I’m talking about the actual idea of revolutionary socialism which is common ownership of the means of production and a social revolution emphasizing radical egalitarianism.

Well, the "socialism" horse is out of the barn.

And socialism means a command economy, amongst other things. The US has a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well, the "socialism" horse is out of the barn.

And socialism means a command economy, amongst other things. The US has a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism.

No, the United States does not have a command economy. Nor does the US have socialism. It’s clear you do not understand either concept. No matter though, once the actual socialist revolution occurs the true believers who know what they want will have you liquidated.

 

[Antiwar]

Why not?

Because it's unethical for people to be barely surviving (or not) while others plunder resources, and hold others down.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Because it's unethical for people to be barely surviving (or not) while others plunder resources, and hold others down.

Is it?

says who? Why do you believe that?

 

[TurtleDude]

Because it's unethical for people to be barely surviving (or not) while others plunder resources, and hold others down.

why does someone's existence create a just claim on the wealth or industry of someone else?

 

[Antiwar]

No, the United States does not have a command economy. Nor does the US have socialism. It’s clear you do not understand either concept. No matter though, once the actual socialist revolution occurs the true believers who know what they want will have you liquidated.

You're trying to stick to one narrow definition of socialism. You probably call Obama and Bernie socialists.

Link: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...onsidered-market-economy-or-mixed-economy.asp

Quote (more at the linked website):

The United States has a mixed economy. It works according to an economic system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects some private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to intervene in economic activities in order to achieve social aims and for the public good.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
* The U.S. is a mixed economy, exhibiting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism.
* Such a mixed economy embraces economic freedom when it comes to capital use, but it also allows for government intervention for the public good.
* The U.S. government controls part of the economy with restriction and licensing requirements, which includes involvement in such areas as education, courts, roads, hospital care, and postal delivery.
* The government’s role in a mixed economy can also include financial policies, such as monetary and fiscal policies.

How the U.S. Government Impacts the Economy:
The U.S. government has always played a role in the economic affairs of the nation.

...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You're trying to stick to one narrow definition of socialism. You probably call Obama and Bernie socialists.

Link: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...onsidered-market-economy-or-mixed-economy.asp

Quote (more at the linked website):

It is clear that the author of your source, does not properly understand Socialism either. Let us say this again, Socialism is not when the government provides services or directs the economy.

Bernie Sanders is obviously a socialist, he truly believes in the radical ideas of socialism, and he self identifies himself as such. Barack Obama I do not believe as a socialist. I think he uses socialist rhetoric for political gain, but he is not down for the revolution of the proletariat.

 

[Antiwar]

why does someone's existence create a just claim on the wealth or industry of someone else?

We're essentially on an island. Less than half of the population (the Global North) is using up the resources of the island. The Global South is subjugated by the Global North.

 

[TurtleDude]

We're essentially on an island. Less than half of the population (the Global North) is using up the resources of the island. The Global South is subjugated by the Global North.

some is rich
some is poor
that's the way the world is
but I don't believe in laying back
saying how bad your luck is

Joe Strummer

 

[EMNofSeattle]

We're essentially on an island. Less than half of the population (the Global North) is using up the resources of the island. The Global South is subjugated by the Global North.

The global north in the global south? Are you talking like literally the northern and southern hemisphere’s or is this something else?

 

[Antiwar]

It is clear that the author of your source, does not properly understand Socialism either. Let us say this again, Socialism is not when the government provides services or directs the economy.

Bernie Sanders is obviously a socialist, he truly believes in the radical ideas of socialism, and he self identifies himself as such. Barack Obama I do not believe as a socialist. I think he uses socialist rhetoric for political gain, but he is not down for the revolution of the proletariat.

It's partly a matter of purity. Just as one might incorrectly call the US socioeconomic systems purely capitalistic when they're not, you're denying the socialistic features of those systems only because they're not 100% socialistic. Plus, you're using one narrow definition of socialism (until you called Bernie a socialist).

Capitalism is supported by socialism. The infrastructure is socialized, the profits are privatized. Bailouts of corporations using taxpayer (or borrowed or printed) money. Welfare supporting Walmart workers. Socialism for the corporations, capitalism for The People.

A socialialized military paid for with taxation ("socialism"), with antisocial methods to command the accessibility of resources where it can easily enough get away with it. American hegemony probably could also be called socialism- commanding other economies.

 

[Antiwar]

some is rich
some is poor
that's the way the world is
but I don't believe in laying back
saying how bad your luck is

Joe Strummer

That's probably why you love guns, because you love that America strongarms much of the world, so you can live higher on the hog. It probably makes you feel special.

 

[Antiwar]

The global north in the global south? Are you talking like literally the northern and southern hemisphere’s or is this something else?

Something else, but the split is north-south, in general.

The Global South is an emerging term, used by the World Bank and other organizations, identifying countries with one side of the underlying global North–South divide, the other side being the countries of the Global North.[1] As such the term does not inherently refer to a geographical south; for example, most of the Global South is actually within the Northern Hemisphere.[1]

 

[TurtleDude]

That's probably why you love guns, because you love that America strongarms much of the world, so you can live higher on the hog. It probably makes you feel special.

nope, I like shooting sports. I also like the fact that I am well equipped to defend myself and my family from parasites who would try to take what I have

 

[Antiwar]

nope, I like shooting sports. I also like the fact that I am well equipped to defend myself and my family from parasites who would try to take what I have

You not having an issue with my comment is telling. At the bare minimum you accept my comment about America's strongarming to be true.

 

[TurtleDude]

You not having an issue with my comment is telling. At the bare minimum you accept my comment about America's strongarming to be true.

I don't feel a need to dispute every silly thing you say. Besides I issued a general denial "NOPE"

 

[post]

The democrats' commitment to democracy vs authoritarianism, especially from 2017 and now, was all that stood in the way of the latter taking enough control to preempt continuing constitutional governance.

Capitulation to some of the corporate agenda brings in some money that would double in effectiveness if instead was spent against democrats.
The unity Pelosi was able to achieve where it mattered most, is center right, but the opposition is on the edge where right wing authoritarians flirt with Stalinists.

Now, one party is declaring itself unrestrained by election results, and in the immediate aftermath of those results, not in the fourth year of a president's term as they did with their first shot, ignoring the nomination of Judge Garland to a SCOTUS seat.

You have to play the cards you are dealt. The democratic party consensus is a center right compromise, just enough to constitutionally expel Trump.
My orientation is to the left of Elizabeth Warren's, Bernie is not as practical. Wealth inequality begs for a Huey Long flavored, wealth confiscation policy.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

The 2017 tax cutting taught that the wealthiest are not interested in capital investment, "Job creators" was a PR slogan. Only sustained, broad consumer demand results in job creation, that, or broad non-nuclear war.

Change will only come if the youth all register and can be convinced to vote in the same proportion to their total number as over 50 voters.
Trump's support indicates a non-white voting majority is needed ASAP.

Otherwise, we remain at the mercy of undecided independent voters. The extreme right keeps the democrats to the right of the center line.
Consider the body protection police wear, and their organizational support infrastructure and non-leathal force alternatives, vs the money pissed away on examples like the $12 million Louisville "no knock warrant" civil liability settlement.

Everytime cops pump a dozen bullets into a guy waving a knife is another million dollar settlement down the drain. It doesn't come out of police budgets, but maybe it should. Cops intimidate the governments who hire, deploy, and are supposed to control them. Police unions supported Trump because he assured them he would shield them from accountability for just about any excess or policy or act of racial or economic discrimination. If 25 percent of police calls involve mental or emotional disorder, resources should be rebalanced to enhance effective response and minimize use of deadly force. Why are resources available to tranquilize a bear in a suburban neighborhood but not a man waving a knife or engaging in some other non-lethal force threatening?

Our choice is Joe Biden* | Editorials | unionleader.com
www.unionleader.com › Opinion › Editorials
Oct 25, 2020 — There is no love lost between this newspaper and President Donald J. Trump. The Union Leader was very quickly dismissed by then-candidate ... While the last several trillion was in response to the COVID-19 economic crisis, at least the first three trillion was on the books well before the pandemic, while Trump was presiding over “...the best economy we’ve ever had in the history of our country.” (Trump’s words.)

Trump has rolled back 125 climate and environmental policies ...
www.washingtonpost.com › climate-environment › tru...
Oct 30, 2020 — President Trump has weakened or wiped out more than 125 rules and policies aimed at protecting the nation's air, water and land since taking ...

None of these should be concerns of democrats, considering the damage of Trump party to federal revenue streams and on EPA policy and enforcement.

• 
  Police funding, tactics, etc.
• Gun rights and regulations
• Religious liberty

Military spending must be reduced, Europe and Japan-South Korea should pay entire defense costs and the U.S. must spent on defending against China

 

[Antiwar]

I don't feel a need to dispute every silly thing you say. Besides I issued a general denial "NOPE"

You're a plinker. I"ve never seen you take your time to read nor write a sufficiently detailed comment. Your air gun doesn't even ruffle a feather.

Either way you answer (deny or revel in it) the US militarism comment, I've got you covered, unless you answer truthfully. And frankly, I don't believe your "nope" because conservatives are typically fervent patriotic supporters of everything military.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

if the multibillionaires and multimillionaires are all allied on one side, the other side is toast

They already are for the most part. They just give us the illusion of choice with the 2 parties they own.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's partly a matter of purity. Just as one might incorrectly call the US socioeconomic systems purely capitalistic when they're not, you're denying the socialistic features of those systems only because they're not 100% socialistic. Plus, you're using one narrow definition of socialism (until you called Bernie a socialist).

Capitalism is supported by socialism. The infrastructure is socialized, the profits are privatized. Bailouts of corporations using taxpayer (or borrowed or printed) money. Welfare supporting Walmart workers. Socialism for the corporations, capitalism for The People.

A socialialized military paid for with taxation ("socialism"), with antisocial methods to command the accessibility of resources where it can easily enough get away with it. American hegemony probably could also be called socialism- commanding other economies.

That is not socialism. Socialism is two fold, common ownership of the means of production and social egalitarianism (“classless society”)

government services and regulation, which have been present in every society ever, are not socialist.

 

[distraff]

I still vote D, but I generally DISagree with the D party on the issue of _____________

For me its immigration and education. For immigration, we should be letting in the most qualified people, and have tough standards to prevent illegal immigration. We should also be boosting border security and that includes barriers. However, I agree with a pathway to citizenship for illegals already here. Just like with a company, we need to be only be letting in the best, not more competition for low-wage workers. We also can't have hundreds of thousands getting into the country without knowing who they are.

On education, the US dumps more money into education than any other country yet we have worse results. For K-12, we need higher standards and give people high school diplomas based on the grade they passed. Getting the full 12th grade diploma should take work and be a special thing. I also support some kind of subsidy for opting for private schools, and that subsidy would be larger for lower-income people. For college, we need to stop the massive amount of money being dumped into these colleges as much of this money is wasted on fluff degrees, fluff courses, and administrative costs. Instead we need to focus on marketable degrees and only funding relevant courses. We should also be working to push online learning, and udemy for example has courses for like $15. We should also be pushing for credible bootcamps, internships, co-ops, tech schools, certification programs, and apprenticeships.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

For me its immigration and education. For immigration, we should be letting in the most qualified people, and have tough standards to prevent illegal immigration. We should also be boosting border security and that includes barriers. However, I agree with a pathway to citizenship for illegals already here. Just like with a company, we need to be only be letting in the best, not more competition for low-wage workers. We also can't have hundreds of thousands getting into the country without knowing who they are.

On education, the US dumps more money into education than any other country yet we have worse results. For K-12, we need higher standards and give people high school diplomas based on the grade they passed. Getting the full 12th grade diploma should take work and be a special thing. I also support some kind of subsidy for opting for private schools, and that subsidy would be larger for lower-income people. For college, we need to stop the massive amount of money being dumped into these colleges as much of this money is wasted on fluff degrees, fluff courses, and administrative costs. Instead we need to focus on marketable degrees and only funding relevant courses. We should also be working to push online learning, and udemy for example has courses for like $15. We should also be pushing for credible bootcamps, internships, co-ops, tech schools, certification programs, and apprenticeships.

Why should we give a pathway to citizenship for illegals already here? That only incentivizes more illegal migration. When you send the message that we will just keep issuing amnesties you’re increasing the problem

 

[distraff]

Why should we give a pathway to citizenship for illegals already here? That only incentivizes more illegal migration. When you send the message that we will just keep issuing amnesties you’re increasing the problem

Practically speaking, there are just so many of them here and they are so integrated in their culture, and we aren't getting them out anyway. So we might as well have them out in the open. I support amnesty along with much better security along the border. Also, you aren't going to get the democrats to pass border security without some amnesty anyway. An immigration solution will require compromise on both sides.