• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rick Scott issues travel advisory for ‘socialists,’ warning Florida is ‘openly hostile’ to them

Tigerace117 said:
…..

“They refused to interfere with the movement of food to England, and then halted the previous government's food and relief works, leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without access to work, money, or food.[99]”

en.m.wikipedia.org

Great Famine (Ireland) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
There was a famine. It was not created by Britain. It was an act of God, or, if you prefer, a very unfortunate event of the sort that happens from time to time, even in India, but the famine was not Britain's fault.

At worst, Britain's response to various famines was irresponsible and led to some or many additional deaths from a famine which is a natural event.

The Holodomor, by comparison, was a famine directly responsible to Stalin. It was not a natural event in the least.
 
Last edited:
Gatsby said:
Indeed. But for every right-winger who claims that any safety net is socialism, there's a weirdo leftist to say "Damn right it is." And some of them are in this thread.
I am simply proposing that people who want a safety net say they want a safety net, instead of tying themselves to the crazies.
Click to expand...

So you simply view the word "socialism" as radioactive.
Okay, there are a lot of you out there but the fact is, a social contract involving public goods and services IS indeed a form of socialism however it is NOT
"authoritarian confiscatory socialism" .... it is simply a firewall against the more predatory aspects of unregulated capitalism that is put there to protect ordinary people who run into a rough patch, sometimes after a life of hard work. Ideally anyone who works a full week at a job should be able to muster up enough to afford to live in at least minimally decent conditions and afford the simplest of basics, like a roof and food, and not fear becoming destitute if they have the awful luck of getting sick, or just TOO OLD.

So you're really arguing semantics based on America's long history of paranoia against the communist juggernaut of the Soviet era.
It IS socialism but in the end I personally do not CARE if it is called that or not because IN the end, what matters most is being able to sell these ideas as beneficial to society...you know, that thing the founders spelled out as "providing for the general Welfare". (not welfare checks, well BEING.)
And to that end, the general Welfare also describes our destitute who had the misfortune of being disabled, perhaps even born that way.
The measure of a society is how they treat their weakest and most fragile.
This is what the social contract is there to address.
It is in the name itself, the SOCIAL contract.
 
Gatsby said:
All I'm saying is that it's not going to win any political converts when leftists send upper-middle-class white people down to Miami, and explain to Cuban/Venezuelan refugees that they are ignorant reactionary dumbasses who don't understand that socialism means a Danish welfare state. They will immediately tune that message out. And rightly so.

Might I suggest that Floridians understand better than most Americans what socialism is. And "socialism is when public schools exist" isn't going to fly.

Seriously, if you just want better funding for schools, then just say that instead of calling it socialism. If you just want universal health care, then just say that instead of calling it socialism. And if you actually *do* want a revolution of the proletariat that seizes the means of production, then at least own it instead of doing the motte-and-bailey.
Click to expand...
Those Cuban/Venezuelans refugees that fled Communist states are enamored of "strongmen" leaders that lean fascist right. What appeals to them is just as unAmerican as Communism. We are not calling any program "socialism" either since it is not a form of Govt.. Those programs are efforts to insure at America stays on the path our founders envisioned, securing "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for our citizens. The only ones trying to seize "the means of production" are the fascist right who think being elected means you are king and no one can oppose you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed......
 
Last edited:
BitterPill said:
There was a famine. It was not created by Britain. It was an act of God, or, if you prefer, a very unfortunate event of the sort that happens from time to time, even in India, but the famine was not Britain's fault.

At worst, Britain's response to various famines was irresponsible and led to some or many additional deaths from a famine which is a natural event.

The Holodomor, by comparison, was a famine directly responsible to Stalin. It was not a natural event in the least.
Click to expand...

And, as I already decisively proved, the British colonial regime deliberately took steps which worsened that famine. The British Raj also killed exponentially more people than Stalin ever did.
 
Gatsby said:
Memo to leftists: Stop trying to make socialism happen. Stop trying to rehabilitate the word socialism. A word with such a bloody history doesn't need to be rehabilitated. And if you insist on trying to rehabilitate it, then at least don't do the motte-and-bailey where you pretend that it just means capitalism with a safety net.

If you want capitalism with a safety net, then just say that instead of trying to attach yourself to an unpopular and incorrect label. And if you actually ARE advocating for something more extreme than that, then own it instead of downplaying it.

I want a social safety net. I have absolutely no interest in socialism or any politician who insists on tying themselves to that label.
Click to expand...

Christianity has a pretty bloody history. So does Conservatism. Should the same rules apply to them?
 
If Florida Republicans want less tourism, then they are working towards that goal effectively.
 
Questerr said:
Christianity has a pretty bloody history. So does Conservatism.
Click to expand...
I dunno, you'd have to ask Christians or conservatives. In my experience, most of them will just tell you they're a Christian or conservative, instead of doing the equivalent of the "Socialism is when schools exist" dance.

Should the same rules apply to them?
Click to expand...
What rules? I don't really care how they self-identify because I'm not interested in popularizing their agenda anyway. I am interested in popularizing, say, universal health care. Which is why it pisses me off when people on the left insist on tying it to crazy people who want a revolution of the proletariat...and then feign outrage when conservatives, quite predictably, use their own words against them to say that anyone who wants universal health care is a socialist.

I guess the equivalent for conservatives would be if there were prominent conservatives saying "Real fascism isn't about dictatorship or corporate power or human rights abuses, it's just about making the trains run on time. And since I support trains running on time, I'm proudly a fascist." Wouldn't you think that such a person is, at the very least, a little sus? Possibly an actual fascist, and possibly a misguided idiot needlessly tying himself to a toxic label that's barely even accurate?
 
Nomad4Ever said:
thehill.com

Rick Scott issues travel advisory for ‘socialists,’ warning Florida is ‘openly hostile’ to them

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) issued what he described as a “formal travel advisory for socialists visiting Florida,” on Tuesday, warning that the state was “openly hostile” to socialists and their enab…
thehill.com thehill.com



The post.


Obviously attempting to mock the LGBTQ travel advisories that have been put out recently. Kinda misses the mark considering those were being framed as...you know...a bad thing, whereas this is framed as a good thing. A actual warning for socialists to stay away.

As of now this is just a moronic shitpost by a sitting US senator. Maybe down the line FL will try to pass some kind of "Protecting against Marxism Act" or something, who knows.

Either way, this is an incredibly poorly conceived statement. No other states are putting out "conservative travel advisories" or telling conservatives to stay away or that they should be fearful of political action against them in their own state.

As a self described socialist living in FL it is very clear my representatives hate me. While Biden will go on long speeches about how "at the end of the day we are all Americans" my representatives telling me I should fear them and expect political supression. Cool (y)
Click to expand...

Somebody just needs to get in his skinny little snake face and ask, "or what? What will you do? Exactly what kind of hostile action should a socialist expect?"
 
They are rich grifters, class enemies like them should be afraid.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Well I guess that makes me your enemy then?

Pretty funny to have people just openly arguing for people like me to be treated like an enemy. SURELY this rhetoric will bring in the lost moderate votes. I hear moderates love constitutional violations and political suppression.
Click to expand...
Its good to hear Clax finally tell us who he is.
 
Helix said:
If Florida Republicans want less tourism, then they are working towards that goal effectively.
Click to expand...
That's the message this virtue signalling to the MAGA masses is sending. "Think like us or stay out."

Well and good for ideological purity but lousy for capitalism.
 
KingLeo said:
Extreme nationalists (fascists), i.e. todays GOP, have never liked socialism of any kind.
Click to expand...
They love love LOVE socialist bailouts for their corporate donors.
 
Gatsby said:
At that point it seems rather obvious that people are semantically overloading the word, to deliberately confuse people about what they are actually advocating.
Click to expand...
this is the gop since the 80s
 
Nomad4Ever said:
thehill.com

Rick Scott issues travel advisory for ‘socialists,’ warning Florida is ‘openly hostile’ to them

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) issued what he described as a “formal travel advisory for socialists visiting Florida,” on Tuesday, warning that the state was “openly hostile” to socialists and their enab…
thehill.com thehill.com



The post.


Obviously attempting to mock the LGBTQ travel advisories that have been put out recently. Kinda misses the mark considering those were being framed as...you know...a bad thing, whereas this is framed as a good thing. A actual warning for socialists to stay away.

As of now this is just a moronic shitpost by a sitting US senator. Maybe down the line FL will try to pass some kind of "Protecting against Marxism Act" or something, who knows.

Either way, this is an incredibly poorly conceived statement. No other states are putting out "conservative travel advisories" or telling conservatives to stay away or that they should be fearful of political action against them in their own state.

As a self described socialist living in FL it is very clear my representatives hate me. While Biden will go on long speeches about how "at the end of the day we are all Americans" my representatives telling me I should fear them and expect political supression. Cool (y)
Click to expand...

Rick Scott seems very edgy
 
ClaraD said:
Socialism is far more than just worker ownership.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but it isn’t government services either. Something being socialized isn’t socialism.

Fundamentally, socialism is a form of social and economic organization. It is distinct from capitalism in the same way feudalism is. Saying something is socialist because it’s socialized is like saying a business is feudalist because it’s controlled by what’s basically a monarch.

And that’s doesn’t detract from socialized services at all. But it just means a country has a mixed economy between free market and government controlled. The Roman’s also built roads. They weren’t socialists.
 
Questerr said:
No it isn’t. You are defining socialism as “when the government does things” and that’s ****ing idiotic.
Click to expand...
Really breaks down when you start examining historical governments with that perspective. Like in my previous comment, the Romans are socialists for building roads. Nor were they capitalists for having free market aspects of their economy.

A lot of people don’t understand that socialism is as much about to social and power structures in a society as economic system.
 
Queen Margo said:
NO, first they came for the MAGA
Click to expand...
Yes we cannot forget the ultimate victim, the billionaire with the gold plated toilets.

Donald Trump's Gold Toilets​

Serially bankrupt casino operator and former reality television figure Donald Trump became US President after losing the popular vote by 2.1%, 2,868,686 votes, but winning the electoral vote. So, with what the U.S. government's intelligence agencies concluded was assistance from the Russian government, Trump was President.

Trump, whose father was arrested after participating in a Ku Klux Klan march, and who has a long history of racial discrimination, decorates his palace-like homes in the style of dictators Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Gold (or at least gilding), marble, and over-the-top kitsch.

https://toilet-guru.com/trump.html
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Well, yes, but it isn’t government services either. Something being socialized isn’t socialism.

Fundamentally, socialism is a form of social and economic organization. It is distinct from capitalism in the same way feudalism is. Saying something is socialist because it’s socialized is like saying a business is feudalist because it’s controlled by what’s basically a monarch.

And that’s doesn’t detract from socialized services at all. But it just means a country has a mixed economy between free market and government controlled. The Roman’s also built roads. They weren’t socialists.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to demean socialism. There are good and bad in all forms of governments with few exceptions. What is bad is the people who implement some of them forms of governments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom