• 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!

So lefties want socialism because everybody would be in the same wealth class....

That's what socialism is all about. The whole idea behind Socialism (Marxism in general) is that you always have to adjust society to accommodate the needs of the least affluent. Since the least affluent in every society are generally the ones that are least educated and least capable of employment the general method of accommodation is to lower expectations for everyone else. Eventually you get to a point where there are no longer any expectations for anyone EXCEPT those who are opposed to this type of accommodation. At that point everyone who has expectations that the least among us can, of their own volition, improve their lot in life, becomes the enemy of the appeasers.
 
"Socialism" means government ownership of the means of production and nobody of account is advocating for it.

More stupid ass Trumpist blather. Boy, they sure do love shadowboxing with imagined straw men.




eman926 said:
.... Well then you guys then want EXTREME POVERTY for ALMOST EVERYONE who doesn't work for the government.
Click to expand...

You already farted on moronically about socialism here:

Was Jesus a socialist?
 
eman926 said:
.... Well then you guys then want EXTREME POVERTY for ALMOST EVERYONE who doesn't work for the government.
Click to expand...

No Dem is calling for socialism. You guys need to learn what socialism is because the lot of you that say this is just ignorant on political systems. Tell me where Dems are advocating for Home Depot and McDonalds to all be owned by the government.

your comments are dismissed as LIES.
 
Lutherf said:
That's what socialism is all about. The whole idea behind Socialism (Marxism in general) is that you always have to adjust society to accommodate the needs of the least affluent. Since the least affluent in every society are generally the ones that are least educated and least capable of employment the general method of accommodation is to lower expectations for everyone else. Eventually you get to a point where there are no longer any expectations for anyone EXCEPT those who are opposed to this type of accommodation. At that point everyone who has expectations that the least among us can, of their own volition, improve their lot in life, becomes the enemy of the appeasers.
Click to expand...

So which Dem has advocated for ALL businesses to be OWNED by the government? Otherwise, like the OP, you are LYING and your comments are dismissed as such. Why do you feel the need to flat out LIE? Is it ignorance on your part or just an inane desire to LIE?
 
The only people talking about socialism are Trumpsters, the Trump campaign and the right wing noise machine.
\
Every four years, the same tropes get dug up and recycled in right wing media. it has been going on since the days of the Palmer Raids.
 
Praxas said:
So which Dem has advocated for ALL businesses to be OWNED by the government? Otherwise, like the OP, you are LYING and your comments are dismissed as such. Why do you feel the need to flat out LIE? Is it ignorance on your part or just an inane desire to LIE?
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that argument and, frankly, it's at a point where we're talking about a distinction without a difference. If the role of government is to be the regulation of business to such an extent that the owners have little to no autonomy in the decision making and then to tax business profits to an extent that the owners have little to no economic benefit then that is de facto government ownership. It's the equivalent of sitting in the back seat of the family car on a road trip to Chicago with your finger half an inch from your brother's nose and boldly proclaiming that you're not touching him.
 
Lutherf said:
I keep hearing that argument and, frankly, it's at a point where we're talking about a distinction without a difference. If the role of government is to be the regulation of business to such an extent that the owners have little to no autonomy in the decision making and then to tax business profits to an extent that the owners have little to no economic benefit then that is de facto government ownership. It's the equivalent of sitting in the back seat of the family car on a road trip to Chicago with your finger half an inch from your brother's nose and boldly proclaiming that you're not touching him.
Click to expand...

No, you are REDEFINING a political term to fit your OWN Agenda. The fact is socialism is the government ownership of all businesses and NO Dem is advocating for that so you are LYING as usual. Corporations are making LOADS of profit even under Obama. So your redefining a term to fit your own agenda is a LIE. Why do you feel the need to LIE so much? You only show that your comments are nothing but dishonest garbage.
 
eman926 said:
.... Well then you guys then want EXTREME POVERTY for ALMOST EVERYONE who doesn't work for the government.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Socialism is a form a slavery where the majority of the people work for the minority.

They just aren't called slaves.
 
eman926 said:
.... Well then you guys then want EXTREME POVERTY for ALMOST EVERYONE who doesn't work for the government.
Click to expand...

The left wants socialism, the right wants fascism....tomayto, tomahto.
 
eman926 said:
.... Well then you guys then want EXTREME POVERTY for ALMOST EVERYONE who doesn't work for the government.
Click to expand...

Only idiots think Socialism is defined as the government owning everything. Look up the Mondragon Corporation some time to see what real socialism would look like.
 
Lutherf said:
I keep hearing that argument and, frankly, it's at a point where we're talking about a distinction without a difference. If the role of government is to be the regulation of business to such an extent that the owners have little to no autonomy in the decision making and then to tax business profits to an extent that the owners have little to no economic benefit then that is de facto government ownership. It's the equivalent of sitting in the back seat of the family car on a road trip to Chicago with your finger half an inch from your brother's nose and boldly proclaiming that you're not touching him.
Click to expand...

"Little to no economic benefit"? Have you seem the massive profits the rich have been making?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

Socialism is a form a slavery where the majority of the people work for the minority.

They just aren't called slaves.
Click to expand...

Under capitalism, the 99% work for the 1%. But Capitalists will freak the **** out if you start talking about "wage slavery".
 
Praxas said:
No, you are REDEFINING a political term to fit your OWN Agenda. The fact is socialism is the government ownership of all businesses and NO Dem is advocating for that so you are LYING as usual.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Ever hear of a mixed-economy? Even Lenin, who was the most hate-filled socialist who ever lived, allowed some capitalism in the USSR:

New Economic Policy - Wikipedia
 
Praxas said:
No, you are REDEFINING a political term to fit your OWN Agenda. The fact is socialism is the government ownership of all businesses and NO Dem is advocating for that so you are LYING as usual. Corporations are making LOADS of profit even under Obama. So your redefining a term to fit your own agenda is a LIE. Why do you feel the need to LIE so much? You only show that your comments are nothing but dishonest garbage.
Click to expand...

Brother, we are right now going through a phase where government is taking an EXTREME regulatory stance with regard to privately owned businesses. On the Democrat side they are mandating shutdowns and insane operational standards. On the other side you've got Defense Production Act issues. You've got Democrats that have taken so much control of the energy industry in Caliifornia that they have to use rolling blackouts to ration electricity. You have local mayors handing over sections of their cities to violent criminals thus destroying privately owned businesses.

Anyway, what you're expressing is just the way that lefties look at individual rights in general. They tell us they are SUPPORTING the 2nd Amendment and just want to limit everything regarding who can own a firearm, under what circumstances they can possess it and what types can be owned. It's how they are the first to stand up for free speech as long as it's speech they approve of. It's how they want police restraint when dealing with street criminals but want instant convictions when they're dealing with a political opponent.
 
Questerr said:
"Little to no economic benefit"? Have you seem the massive profits the rich have been making?
Click to expand...

In your world is there any distinction between economic benefit from passive investment and economic benefit from active engagement in a given business venture.

For what it's worth, it's rather easy to make a ton of money investing in the things your political buddies regulate and control.
 
azgreg said:
When did republicans get so ****ing stupid?
Click to expand...

There’s literally no point in debating anything with them anymore. If they can’t even accept the meaning of basic political terms, it’s like trying to discuss physics with your dog.
 
Lutherf said:
In your world is there any distinction between economic benefit from passive investment and economic benefit from active engagement in a given business venture.

For what it's worth, it's rather easy to make a ton of money investing in the things your political buddies regulate and control.
Click to expand...

The only people who should be controlling anything of economic benefit should be the workers themselves. Are you really claiming no rich people are getting massively wealthy from active engagement in business ventures? Jeff Bezos is well on his way to being the world's first trillionaire based on that very thing.
 
Questerr said:
Only idiots think Socialism is defined as the government owning everything. Look up the Mondragon Corporation some time to see what real socialism would look like.
Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting that the word socialism is not mentioned even one single time on its wikipedia page:

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

Tell me, what is "socialist" about it? It's a worker-owned (NOT worker managed) for-profit corporation competing in a market economy.
 
aociswundumho said:
Isn't it interesting that the word socialism is not mentioned even one single time on its wikipedia page:

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

Tell me, what is "socialist" about it? It's a worker-owned (NOT worker managed) for-profit corporation competing in a market economy.
Click to expand...

"Worker owned" is the socialist part.

Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. The corporation is also composed of democratically-organized cooperatives.
 
Lutherf said:
Brother, we are right now going through a phase where government is taking an EXTREME regulatory stance with regard to privately owned businesses. On the Democrat side they are mandating shutdowns and insane operational standards.
Click to expand...
luf argues that his Guv, The Douche, is....wait for it....a democratic party member.
On the other side you've got Defense Production Act issues.
Click to expand...
An exec order, created and signed by....wait for it...Orangey in the WH....who I guess somehow in luf's brain...became a democratic party member too!


AMAZING!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom