Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Fascists, Nazis and Bears - oh my. You guys that use the first two terms loosely (even on Trump) paint yourselves as being historically illiterate. If Fascists were in power as some of you claim there would be no election next year that could threaten their rule.

 

Hitler loved people like you. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nonniey said:

And if he doesn't block elections what will you learn?

 

That he wasn't strong enough to actually subvert the Constitution and if he's re-selected by voter fraud and suppression again he and his minions will keep on ignoring the Constitution and federal laws. 

 

are you okay with that? Because you seem to be okay with the current practice of ignoring the Constitution and federal laws.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

 

That he wasn't strong enough to actually subvert the Constitution and if he's re-selected by voter fraud and suppression again he and his minions will keep on ignoring the Constitution and federal laws. 

 

are you okay with that? Because you seem to be okay with the current practice of ignoring the Constitution and federal laws.

 

He doesn't care. I don't know why people bother with him. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I believe there are some Dems who call themselves socialists. 

 

One calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Incorrectly so. He's actually more of a Social Democrat. You know the differences between the three tho I'm sure. 🙄

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nonniey said:

And if he doesn't block elections what will you learn?

I believe there are some Dems who call themselves socialists. Most elected Dems aren't socialists but some are and they are loud. 

 

Just out of curiosity, could you please provide us with

 

1)  Your "historically literate" definition of socialism.

2)  A list of which Dems you believe fit that definition.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just out of curiosity, could you please provide us with

 

1)  Your "historically literate" definition of socialism.

2)  A list of which Dems you believe fit that definition.

 

1) Government control of means of production (2 ways of doing this outright ownership -  the more traditional and specific definition, or government direction of private ownership -  the Fascist approach).

 

2) a.Bernie although an independent is running as a Dem for President. Calls himself a socialist and does believe in Government control of means of production.

    b. The Democratic Socialists also and there are several of them in Congress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nonniey said:

1) Government control of means of production (2 ways of doing this outright ownership -  the more traditional and specific definition, or government direction of private ownership -  the Fascist approach).

 

2) a.Bernie although an independent is running as a Dem for President. Calls himself a socialist and does believe in Government control of means of production.

    b. The Democratic Socialists also and there are several of them in Congress.

 

 

Except neither Bernie nor any other Democrat has said they are in favor of gov't "controlling" the means of production unless you are suggesting any regulation/checks & balances at all is considering "controlling"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Except neither Bernie nor any other Democrat has said they are in favor of gov't "controlling" the means of production unless you are suggesting any regulation/checks & balances at all is considering "controlling"

 

Exactly. I've yet to hear a Democratic candidate call for the takeover of the likes of Exxon Mobile, Apple, or Microsoft. 

 

Once again just for the record even Bernie doesn't refer to himself as a socialist. He refers to himself as a Democratic Socialist. There's a YUGE ****ing difference.

 

I'm sure even the historically literate @nonniey knows the differences. 

Edited by clietas
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

Exactly. I've yet to hear a Democratic candidate call for the takeover of the likes of Exxon Mobile, Apple, or Microsoft. 

 

Once again just for the record even Bernie doesn't refer to himself as a socialist. He refers to himself as a Democratic Socialist. There's a YUGE ****ing difference.

 

I'm sure even the historically literate @nonniey knows the differences. 

 

Right and it is certainly no accident that right-wing media conveniently leaves off the "Democratic" part.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nonniey said:

1) Government control of means of production (2 ways of doing this outright ownership -  the more traditional and specific definition, or government direction of private ownership -  the Fascist approach).

 

2) a.Bernie although an independent is running as a Dem for President. Calls himself a socialist and does believe in Government control of means of production.

    b. The Democratic Socialists also and there are several of them in Congress.

 

 

"Government direction of private ownership". "Government control of means of production". As in "anybody who believes laws apply to corporations"?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I dont know if this true. I am not denying that there wouldn't be fascist and racist elements out there but how loud would those voices be if people had adequate healthcare, clean water, and even a pension? 

 

The pull of extreme right wing ideologies is hardly ever economic. The Republican Party plays on people's religious, cultural and social sentiments, and will sometimes wrap this under the guise of economics (see: immigrants "stealing" jobs). They will continue to do this regardless of who is opposing them from the left: a neoliberal or a progressive.

 

If people cared about things like adequate healthcare, education or clean water, you wouldn't have Republicans dominating elections in states like West Virginia and Oklahoma, where regressive right wing policies have decimated the environment and the social programs that support communities. People in America for the most part are voting along cultural lines at this point. I think this is why we have seen such a strong shift away from Republicans in traditional suburban strongholds.

 

I mean the same is true for probably a lot of the left-leaning members of this board. If the Republican Party kept its social and cultural policies but advocated for an economic platform that benefited me immensely, I would still not vote for them. The reverse of this is also true. Liberals on any spectrum can put out the most uplifting economic policy agenda, yet their social views on immigration, cultural diversity and minority rights will cost them millions of votes all around the country.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Except neither Bernie nor any other Democrat has said they are in favor of gov't "controlling" the means of production unless you are suggesting any regulation/checks & balances at all is considering "controlling"

Oh Really? There are several Democrats that call themselves part of the Democratic Socialists of America (AOC being the most prominent).

From Vox (Yes Vox for gods sake or is that now a right wing publication?)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17509604/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america

 

"......Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers” or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism” are fiercely debated by socialists......

 

 

And yes regulations can be used as a method for controlling privately owned Industry. The Fascists (especially the NAZIs) did this in the 1930/40s directing means of production (on what they produce, how much, and for who) Venezuela under Chavez and Madura used/uses regulations/decrees the same way on what is left of their private industry (Those they didn't seize).
 
 
Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

If people cared about things like adequate healthcare, education or clean water, you wouldn't have Republicans dominating elections in states like West Virginia and Oklahoma, where regressive right wing policies have decimated the environment and the social programs that support communities. People in America for the most part are voting along cultural lines at this point. I think this is why we have seen such a strong shift away from Republicans in traditional suburban strongholds.

I am not denying these things.

 

My point is the Neo-Liberal Democrats have abdicated the position of economic empowerment and labor rights. It goes back to everyone playing in the Reagan paradigm and the constant move to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I am not denying these things.

 

My point is the Neo-Liberal Democrats have abdicated the position of economic empowerment and labor rights. It goes back to everyone playing in the Reagan paradigm and the constant move to the right.

 

Right. But at least in the US, that isn't what is causing the shift towards an extreme right wing IMO. This is almost entirely driven by the cultural and social pull of mainstream America towards a more progressive and open society.

Edited by No Excuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

My point is the Neo-Liberal Democrats have abdicated the position of economic empowerment and labor rights. It goes back to everyone playing in the Reagan paradigm and the constant move to the right.

 

I am too young to be able to pin point to the "birth of neo liberalism" but it certainly feels like the Reagan revolution was the official death of FDR Democrats wielding any kind of political power. Ever since trickle down became the major driving force in economic policy, even when Dems get elected they seem timid at upsetting that power structure. They might suggest rolling back some tax rates which effectively raising them back anywhere from a fraction of a percent to 3%, but they never seemed willing to call out Trickle Down for what it is and really go after the entire system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Right. But at least in the US, that isn't what is causing the shift towards an extreme right wing IMO. This is almost entirely driven by the cultural and social pull of mainstream America towards a more progressive and open society.

I don't know. A lot of this started when we gutted labor rights.

 

instead of standing up, they moved to the right. This is becoming circular.

6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I am too young to be able to pin point to the "birth of neo liberalism" but it certainly feels like the Reagan revolution was the official death of FDR Democrats wielding any kind of political power. Ever since trickle down became the major driving force in economic policy, even when Dems get elected they seem timid at upsetting that power structure. They might suggest rolling back some tax rates which effectively raising them back anywhere from a fraction of a percent to 3%, but they never seemed willing to call out Trickle Down for what it is and really go after the entire system. 

Neoliberals don't want to wield power. Meanwhile, the insane right and fascists are all about flexing power.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, nonniey said:

And yes regulations can be used as a method for controlling privately owned Industry. The Fascists (especially the NAZIs) did this in the 1930/40s directing means of production (on what they produce, how much, and for who) Venezuela under Chavez and Madura used/uses regulations/decrees the same way on what is left of their private industry (Those they didn't seize).

 

Ok this is sort of my point.  This entire capitalism vs socialism nonsense where anything slightly to the left of complete "liaise fair unfettered capitalism" is being called socialism. Now you see it with right-wing media where they just robot-like spouting the line "Taxation is theft" as some kind of, I guess, rebuttal to the backlash against the wealthy getting more tax breaks.

 

I want some examples of Bernie actually saying it is his policy to control means & productions, what you replied with was saying that regulations are a method.  Ok, what regulations, all regulations, any regulations?   

 

Besides healthcare, what are some examples of Bernie wanting to nationalize commodities? 

 

When I said "No Democrats" I meant No Democrats running for President, sorry my mistake.  Now if I give you AOC, that makes it exactly 1 Democrat you can offer up. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nonniey said:

 

And yes regulations can be used as a method for controlling privately owned Industry. The Fascists (especially the NAZIs) did this in the 1930/40s directing means of production (on what they produce, how much, and for who) Venezuela under Chavez and Madura used/uses regulations/decrees the same way on what is left of their private industry (Those they didn't seize).
 
 

 

:rofl89:

 

Every government ever has imposed regulations as a method for controlling industry and the populous. 

 

Image result for reductio ad hitlerum 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

Get over it candidates.  The 3rd debate is September and the 4th Debate is October.  If don't have significant via polling or donation support, after the 2nd debates in July; you aren't going to get any.  You are nothing but a fringe candidate and nothing more.  The fall debates will sort out the field even more between more also rans and the real contenders for next winter's voting.  You aren't going to have 20+ candidates on the ballot next winter.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, abdcskins said:

Any questions for Pete Buttigieg? Gonna be hanging with him tomorrow. 

 

Is his brother in law lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.