What worries you more, some so called socialist programs or authoritarian rule?

[Linc]

Socialism is authoritarian rule by definition.

Trump, Barr, and McConnell are the authoritarian fascists.

 

[jotathought]

Do social programs equal communism?

Social Programs = Big Government = Less Liberty.

As government funding for social programs continues to grow, it grants government greater control over its electorate and they become more enslaved to the dependency and aren't incentivized to break that dependency.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

[/QUOTE]
See #109, "Fred," where it's clearly a response to your earlier whacked-out bull shit. But thanks for revealing once again how clueless you and all those like you are.[/QUOTE]However you said, "Even Republicans aren't dumbshit enough to encode their racism in the platform. But you and your like constantly remind us of it, most notably when you insult Black Dem voters by referring to them being on the plantation or not knowing any better than to vote for Dems. Of course, there's the labeling BLM as a terrorist group. Oh, and doing everything possible to prevent Black voters from doing so", none of which has anything to do with what I've said. Please use quotes.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Sure, you can enter anytime...but you should at least understand what you're arguing for or against before you do.

I suggest you take your own advice, Fred.

I quoted you every time.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

The only reason we're not discussing the topic is because of you.

It's actually because you can't substantiate any of the claims you're making.

 

[OceanBlues1]

So what are you afraid of more, a few socialist programs or Trump's authoritian rule?

To answer the question, I'm far more worried about Trump's authoritarian rule, which he seems determined to impose on the American people no matter what. A few so-called "socialist programs," like affordable health care and worker's rights? Nope, not one bit.

 

[OceanBlues1]

I don't think Donald Trump is a threat to this Republic.

Well, I do think Donald Trump is a threat to this Republic, a very serious threat, which is why I'll vote against him. I didn't vote for him in 2016 either.

Any president who says "get rid of the ballots," as Trump has done, is a serious threat indeed, no matter what Trump supporters want us to believe. He was unfit for office then, he's even worse now.

 

[OceanBlues1]

You claim there is "hysteria" on the Trump Right but give no examples.

Trump's call to "get rid of the ballots" is a perfect example of his hysteria, to me anyway. The way I see it, Trump's hysteria is driven by what may happen to him if he loses this election, when he's no longer protected from state and/or federal authorities by being a sitting president.

 

[Paradoxical]

I don't care about his Authoritarianism.

I don't even care about what he does to Obama, or what the Republicans did to Obama and to us to maintain power and control after handing over an economic crisis.

They were the desperate scurvy politicians who almost got shut out by Al Gore.

I care that Trump made the same tax cut as created the Bush economic crisis.

I care that all this money went on the credit card.

I care about the Republican hypocrisy.

I care that the Democrats have made no mistake, except to reach out to these scurvy rats with their bare hand.

Give them the President, House and Senate, and let's see what they will do.

If we fail on the Senate, we won't be able to repeal the tax cut, but at least we will have a Democrat with restraints.

Um, the meltdown during the Bush term was due solely to the liberals mandating that banks loan money for houses to minorities without credit. Can't say that because it's "racist" so society is bludgeoned into being quiet by who? Leftists.

 

[Paradoxical]

Trump's call to "get rid of the ballots" is a perfect example of his hysteria, to me anyway. The way I see it, Trump's hysteria is driven by what may happen to him if he loses this election, when he's no longer protected from state and/or federal authorities by being a sitting president.

Mail voting fraud is proven.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Said the guy that just referred to democrats as communists. Perhaps you prefer fascist authoritarianism, is that it?

Unfortunately, some people do. Until the authoritarian government directly affects them, at least. I don't, which is why I'll vote against Trump, as I did four years ago.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Democrats are against authoritarianism in ANY form. The right not so much.

Absolutely agree. I've never seen a Democratic candidate for president issue a call to "get rid of the ballots," for example. You know, like Trump has already done. Calling to "get rid of the ballots" strikes me as something a wannabe dictator does.

 

[OceanBlues1]

There you go yet again. It seems. He's trying. Let me know when he actually does something.

He has done something, in the form of issuing a call to "get rid of the ballots." He did that just last week. That's more than enough reason for serious concern in my book. And it's a concern to a lot of other U.S. voters as well.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Socialism is authoritarian rule by definition.

Those particular Democrats who want socialism certainly do. And socialism by its very nature is authoritarian, even if it is established via democratic rather than violent revolutionary means; any system in which the state is required to decide who shall work and who shall eat can be nothing else but authoritarian. But social welfare programs meant to act as a safety net for the poor, the disabled and the just plain unlucky do not trouble me in the slightest. Authoritarian rule does worry me, whether it is instantiated in a President who believes in untrammeled personal rule, or one who wishes to create a vast and unchecked administrative state which can crush individuals and violate their freedoms with little to no consequence.

The idea that Socialism is authoritarian by definition is a misconception. Socialism, as described by Marx and Engles, is not a system of governance at all. It is an economic system, like Capitalism. Any system in which the means of production is collectively owned by the people doing the labor of production is Socialist in the Marxist sense. There is nothing about this that inherently requires authoritarian rule.

The confusion arises because all of the most well-known attempts to implement Socialism as an economic system thus far have been made by authoritarian systems of governance.

There are many examples of Socialism working just fine within a Democratic Republic though. A community garden is an example of functional Socialism. The people doing the gardening collectively own the plot, they do the work, and they get the veggies. There is no Bourgois in the equation to mooch off of their excess labor. Therefore a community garden is a Socialist system. The same goes for Credit Unions, co-ops, and a host of other examples where folks cut out the Bourgois middle-man.

Open-source software is another example of functional socialism. To quote Marx, "the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor." The developers of Blender receive back exactly what they put into it, without any surplus value being siphoned away by the CEO of Autodesk. That is the very definition of Socialism.

 

[Moderate Right]

He has done something, in the form of issuing a call to "get rid of the ballots." He did that just last week. That's more than enough reason for serious concern in my book. And it's a concern to a lot of other U.S. voters as well.

Show me the ballots that have been gotten rid of. Hint, they are the ones in the Pennsylvania dumpster (all Trump votes) that the left claims were inadvertently thrown away. Those are the ballots we know were gotten rid of. There are no others.

 

[digitusmedius]

There you go yet again. It seems. He's trying. Let me know when he actually does something.

Yeah...wait until the fox eats all the chickens to fix the hole in the coop. One thing that's true about fascist scum like Dirtbag trying to become dictators: When the tell you what they're going to do, believe them.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yeah...wait until the fox eats all the chickens to fix the hole in the coop. One thing that's true about fascist scum like Dirtbag trying to become dictators: When the tell you what they're going to do, believe them.

The fox hasn't eaten one chicken yet. With you guys the sky is always falling. Just wait long enough and it will fall. The sky will fall if Biden is elected.

 

[Ikari]

I constantly hear the trumpsters shouting the Dems want socialism. Of course they are so stupid they do not know the difference between socialism and some social programs, i.e., Social Security and Medicare. What I do not hear them complain about is the type of authoritarian rule that Trump seems to be moving the country to. He has even said straight out that he wants to name a justice to the court so that they can give him the election. And these same Trumpsters called Obama a dictator for using executive orders, while applauding Trump for doing so much more to the country with his orders. So what are you afraid of more, a few socialist programs or Trump's authoritian rule?

Well the social systems being urged tend not to actually be "socialism", that's just fear mongering by the right.

But the Republocrat Oligarchy in general has been marching us down the road of authoritative fascism for some time. Trump didn't start this, he's embraced it far more openly than Republocrats in the past, but he's just continuing a tradition. And like always, doing it without brake or filter.

It's not socialism we need to worry about, it's fascism.

 

[digitusmedius]

Show me the ballots that have been gotten rid of. Hint, they are the ones in the Pennsylvania dumpster (all Trump votes) that the left claims were inadvertently thrown away. Those are the ballots we know were gotten rid of. There are no others.

Here's the real story about those ballots:
1. Luzerne Co. went for Dirtbag by 20 points in 2016 so the idea that the county clerk would be trying to throw away any ballots, much less military ones is, as usual, absurd.
2. Just like Comey did in 2016, the DoJ violated its own rules (surprise!!!!) by going public with its investigation. We'll certainly see more of that from Barr as election day gets closer. Just how corrupt this department is under Barr, it was Dirtbag himself who made a public comment about them before the DoJ issued its statement. IOW, Dirtbag got fed the information right away.
3. At least some of the ballots were identical in appearance to mail-in and absentee ballot requests envelopes so the newly hired contractor opened them. For that reason there was no secrecy envelope. It also turns out that these were write-in ballots that had been mailed out too soon. Here's what the WaPo discovered:

Because these ballots were returned in envelopes similar to absentee ballot requests, elections officials opened them. If the ballots weren’t then enclosed in another envelope that shielded the actual vote being cast, they may have been considered “naked ballots,” a term used to describe mail ballots returned without the voter’s intent being protected.

 

[digitusmedius]

The fox hasn't eaten one chicken yet. With you guys the sky is always falling. Just wait long enough and it will fall. The sky will fall if Biden is elected.

I guess you need to have it spelled out without animal analogies. Once the autocrat achieves his goal it's too late to fix. It's really funny how calm you all are now but if a Dem had ever even whispered any one of Dirtbag's threats to an election you be screaming for the militia boys and their toys to take action.

 

[Moderate Right]

Here's the real story about those ballots:
1. Luzerne Co. went for Dirtbag by 20 points in 2016 so the idea that the county clerk would be trying to throw away any ballots, much less military ones is, as usual, absurd.
2. Just like Comey did in 2016, the DoJ violated its own rules (surprise!!!!) by going public with its investigation. We'll certainly see more of that from Barr as election day gets closer. Just how corrupt this department is under Barr, it was Dirtbag himself who made a public comment about them before the DoJ issued its statement. IOW, Dirtbag got fed the information right away.
3. At least some of the ballots were identical in appearance to mail-in and absentee ballot requests envelopes so the newly hired contractor opened them. For that reason there was no secrecy envelope. It also turns out that these were write-in ballots that had been mailed out too soon. Here's what the WaPo discovered:

1. A county clerk can't possibly be a Democrat?

2. So, you're fine with anti-Trump stuff coming out but if it backs Trump up then it shouldn't be allowed.

3. LOL. Yeah, remember that when Biden votes are found in the dumpster.

 

[digitusmedius]

The fox hasn't eaten one chicken yet. With you guys the sky is always falling. Just wait long enough and it will fall. The sky will fall if Biden is elected.

Only your polluted sky. The Republic will be spared. You're an accomplice before the fact for that destruction if Dirtbag manages to get the SC to install him.

 

[Moderate Right]

I guess you need to have it spelled out without animal analogies. Once the autocrat achieves his goal it's too late to fix. It's really funny how calm you all are now but if a Dem had ever even whispered any one of Dirtbag's threats to an election you be screaming for the militia boys and their toys to take action.

Ahhhhhhhhh, yes. Now I understand and I totally agree. Leftists are getting suckered into believing that there is such as thing as Democratic socialism and before they realize it, they find that the Democratic part slips off and we just have socialism. They're already threatening to remove the filibuster and stack the Supreme Court to their advantage.

 

[digitusmedius]

Ahhhhhhhhh, yes. Now I understand and I totally agree. Leftists are getting suckered into believing that there is such as thing as Democratic socialism and before they realize it, they find that the Democratic part slips off and we just have socialism. They're already threatening to remove the filibuster and stack the Supreme Court to their advantage.

Wow, that's as fast and sudden a deflection back to your favorite hobby horse as I've ever seen one of you cultists make. I love it as you stand by cheering Dirtbag's threats and Moscow Mitch's ham handed power grabs and tell us Dems have to play by their rules. If Dirtbag succeeds in using the SC to give him the presidency that the American people denied him then there are no more norms that anyone has to follow any longer. Your side has already been doing it for years now. Besides, the filibuster is just a rule that has been implemented and removed multiple times over its history. And the number of SC justices has gone up and down multiple times:

Adams and the Federalists then went a step further. They passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 which decreased the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, further lowering the odds that Jefferson would get to nominate a new justice during his term in office. In response, Jefferson and his new Congress quickly repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, bringing the number of justices officially back to six. And since no justice had died in the interim, the number of seated justices never actually dropped to five.

By the start of the Civil War, the number of Supreme Court justices had increased to nine in order to cover additional circuit courts in the expanding American West. But Abraham Lincoln, upset over the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dredd Scott and wanting to cement an anti-slavery majority on the Court, added a 10th justice in 1863.

After the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination, Congress clashed with Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, who was rapidly undoing the “Radical Republicans’” plan for Reconstruction. To limit Johnson’s power, Congress passed legislation in 1866 that cut the number of Supreme Court justices back to seven, all but assuring that Johnson wouldn’t have the opportunity to fill a vacant seat.
The last time Congress changed the number of Supreme Court justices was in 1869, again to meet a political end. Ulysses S. Grant was elected president in 1868 with the backing of the congressional Republicans who had hated Johnson. As a gift to Grant, Congress increased the number of justices from seven back to nine, and Grant gamely used those picks.

Moscow Mitch has arbitrarily denied a sitting President's pick to even be considered on the patently absurd excuse that it was "too soon" (9 months) before an election then turns around and does exactly that for another president just a month before his re-election is in grave danger. If that doesn't mean that nobody has to play be any "rules" anymore then nothing does.

 

[Moderate Right]

Wow, that's as fast and sudden a deflection back to your favorite hobby horse as I've ever seen one of you cultists make. I love it as you stand by cheering Dirtbag's threats and Moscow Mitch's ham handed power grabs and tell us Dems have to play by their rules. If Dirtbag succeeds in using the SC to give him the presidency that the American people denied him then there are no more norms that anyone has to follow any longer. Your side has already been doing it for years now. Besides, the filibuster is just a rule that has been implemented and removed multiple times over its history. And the number of SC justices has gone up and down multiple times:



Moscow Mitch has arbitrarily denied a sitting President's pick to even be considered on the patently absurd excuse that it was "too soon" (9 months) before an election then turns around and does exactly that for another president just a month before his re-election is in grave danger. If that doesn't mean that nobody has to play be any "rules" anymore then nothing does.

Calling someone Moscow Mitch and calling the president Donny Dirtbag only shows you are nothing but a raging partisan who has zero interest in honest debate.