• 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!

State of the Onion

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Guardian: The five key takeaways from Trump's State of the Union address - excerpt:

Trump denounces socialism in 2020 election preview

But the president swiftly shifted his attention back home, suggesting socialists were on the rise in America in a thinly veiled reference to the economic populism that has increasingly become the Democratic Party’s platform.

“Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” Trump said.

He added: “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

Several Democratic presidential candidates sat stoically in the audience, including Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Kamala Harris of California. The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who is weighing a second bid for the Democratic nomination, looked visibly agitated by Trump’s comments.

It was perhaps a hint of what is to come in the 2020 election, with several Democratic candidates embracing progressive priorities that include the single-payer healthcare plan Medicare-for-All, debt-free college tuition, and universal paid family leave.

Republicans have sought to brand such ideas as “socialist”, despite polling showing the proposals as popular among the American public.

Trump wouldn't know socialism if it bit him on the nose. It exists nowhere in the world except, perhaps, in North Korea. And even Kim wants out.

What does exist is an entity called a Social Democracy, which Merriam Webster defines as:
1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

Social doctrine can and does exist within capitalist economies. The European Union is a self-declared Social Democracy, which makes it the largest such democracy on earth with more than 513 million people (about one-third more than the US).

So, Donald Dork's dismissal of "socialism" is quirky, but that's the way he is. He looks at a map of the EU and thinks it’s just a bunch of European countries. It is a democratic entity with a parliament in Strasbourg.

And nobody visiting the EU would think it is essentially different from the US, unless you lived here - which I do. Meaning I know the principal differences between the US and EU in terms of societal goals and their institutional make-up.

For instance, two key differences:
*When I go for an annual health check-up (or were I in need of surgery) about 75% of the cost would be assumed by the state. The other 25% would be paid by "private healthcare insurance” that costs about $100 a month for a small family.
*I sent my kids to university at a cost of less than $1000 of annual tuition.

Meaning what? This: For key services to the individual the Social Democracies of Europe are far more proficient than Uncle Sam who hangs on religiously to an outmoded disgust of what he thinks is "socialism".

Where would you rather live? Because up to about 750K* of your fellow yanks happen to live in the EU.

And now you know why - because of the social-services that are provided to families of which Americans living in the US can only dream ...
 
Got to be one of the most dishonest...and amusing spin attempts I've ever heard:

When Trump talks about jobs, businesses and the economy, it's "nationalist populism". But when leftist socialists talk about government control, it's "economic populism".

Gotta love the Guardian, eh?
 
Got to be one of the most dishonest...and amusing spin attempts I've ever heard:

When Trump talks about jobs, businesses and the economy, it's "nationalist populism". But when leftist socialists talk about government control, it's "economic populism".

Gotta love the Guardian, eh?

Trump is no nationalist. He is a conman and a sleaze. A true nationalist would spend that 5.7 bn on our vets and homeless kids, and instead of a wall, would jail employers for undermining american labor markets by hiring illegal immigrants for their own personal gain.

Of course, Trump is now a massive fundraiser. So he can't upset his donor class, oh no.

The speech was a bumbling trainwreck.
 
Trump said:
“Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

I felt this was just throwing meat to the base. No one is proposing the US is going to be a socialist country; and that's such a generic term. The US is a mixed economy, so the more accurate debate to have is what balance of capitalism and socialism you have in that mix; that's where the real friction lies.
 
I felt this was just throwing meat to the base. No one is proposing the US is going to be a socialist country; and that's such a generic term. The US is a mixed economy, so the more accurate debate to have is what balance of capitalism and socialism you have in that mix; that's where the real friction lies.

It's a propaganda term now. I don't know of many politicians who are endorsing actual socialism, not in terms of the state taking over means of production. But "socialism" is a useful term to throw about as propaganda without much understanding the actual political and economic structures an actual socialist state would enact.
 
It's a propaganda term now. I don't know of many politicians who are endorsing actual socialism, not in terms of the state taking over means of production. But "socialism" is a useful term to throw about as propaganda without much understanding the actual political and economic structures an actual socialist state would enact.

Cue the usual idiots running around shrieking “VENEZUELA!!!!”
 
Cue the usual idiots running around shrieking “VENEZUELA!!!!”

Yeah, that stuff always cracks me up. The situation in Venezuela is a cautionary tale for sure, but one that had a lot more to it than just "socialism". It reminds me of the communist/Nazi propaganda that cited the Great Depression in the US as "capitalism...OH NOES!!".
 
Yeah, that stuff always cracks me up. The situation in Venezuela is a cautionary tale for sure, but one that had a lot more to it than just "socialism". It reminds me of the communist/Nazi propaganda that cited the Great Depression in the US as "capitalism...OH NOES!!".

The difference is that capitalism has had many successes, while socialism has had only failures.
 
The difference is that capitalism has had many successes, while socialism has had only failures.

The dishonesty in that assessment is many economies are mixed with varying degrees of both systems to manage it's economic growth and social programs.
 
Back
Top Bottom