Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[ScienceRocks]

Addicting Info Explaining Socialism To A Republican


There you go republicans...Learn something

Thank god Obama isn't a socialist. That is what he keeps telling us and I keep voting for him because he isn't a socialist. Sarcasm off!

But he is a asshole and racist.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The "socialism" problem that many on the Right has is that, when you deal in absolutes, you paint yourself into a corner.

Elements of what could be construed as "socialism" exist and have existed for a long time in America.

It's about equilibrium, not absolutes. For some reason they don't grasp that, and it makes their positions easy targets.

.

It's a shame that they thing in absolutes instead of developing a good responsible platform to win elections. Being anti-science, nasa, nws, usgs, fda, fcc and irs isn't going to win you elections. It is going to make you look like a fucking fool.

There's a reason libertarianism never won shit in this country and adapting its platform is a loser for the republican party. They need to throw this shit out of the window and become the party of accountability as they were 20 years ago.

Become pro-science
Promote morals and the family
Pro defense

Being anti-government is just dumb. Attempting to convince people that we need to tax the rich 0% or get rid of the minimum wage is dumb! We as a nation need some reasonable government and we need a party that demands better...The republicans could be that party...Losertarianism is a loser.

Y'know, I have a theory on that.

Most of the energy in the party is centered in the Tea Party, of course. The Tea Party was essentially born in early 2009 following Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC and has a VERY strong libertarian element. So it's really only been around for six years, it's still young and trying to figure itself out, barging around like a bull in a china shop.

Many people in the Tea Party were not politically active prior to this, they're new at this, and they have not yet learned the value of nuance and effective political communication like their foes on the Left long since have. Everything has to be 100% pure, so anything that in any way requires them to accept anything to their Left is like being stuck with a nail.

So when you have absolutists controlling the energy in a major party, holy crap, this is what happens. They can win in local and state elections because of the nature of districts and geographical ideology. But nationally, I don't know.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Just for the record, looking around the web, there are four or five countries/states that most sources agree are actually socialist: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, some say North Korea.

It's pretty clear that this is not the goal of the Left, and it seems pretty obvious that the goal is more like the Euro-social democracies such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France.

For those countries, the equilibrium on the scale between government and private industry is simply further left than it is here. It's not "socialism".

So the conservatives are essentially arguing against a ghost. I would think that where America falls on that scale and what that would look like would be the conversation, not simplistic labels.

.

The real poison of the left is identity politics of using one group against one another. The republicans need to be the party that says that this is wrong.

Yes, but their communication skills right now are so bad that I wouldn't hold my breath.

.

 

[there4eyeM]

All this ranting on the part of so many who reduce everything to two positions (and I don't mean everyone here); right, left, lib, con! Every time and in every discussion! Finally it comes down to this: 1(side) + 1(the other side) = 0 (real discussion, debate and new thinking).

 

[Mac1958]

All this ranting on the part of so many who reduce everything to two positions (and I don't mean everyone here); right, left, lib, con! Every time and in every discussion! Finally it comes down to this: 1(side) + 1(the other side) = 0 (real discussion, debate and new thinking).

Bingo. Binary thinking.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, I don't need a king like you do, telling you how to live your life seeing as you fail at it daily.


I like your picture, it demonstrates your over abundance of ignorance. Dictators and Kings have failed humanity since it's inception, so clearly you are enlightened for wanting to explore that failed society just one more time.

A decent society is run by the elites. An insane one is run by a monarchy, or the pitchforks, or a religion. It's why we were founded as a Liberal Secular Democratic Republic, to avoid the king, mob rule, and the church.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it wonderful how they use the word "liberal" leaning on the classic definition of the term, which is true... while simultaneously demanding that the term also represents the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE CLASSIC DEFINITION.

Understand, it is saying that the US was founded upon Natural Principle which recognizes that all humanity is endowed by their Creator with rights SO certain that those rights are inseparable from their being.

Which is true... even as they demand that The US should turn from those principles, rejecting every BIT of it from the existence of the Creator, the design of the human body, the purpose of human sexuality and the inalienable responsibilities that sustain the means to exercise the inalienable RIGHTS!

The thing to remember here is that:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.
​

And that is because Nature precludes the means to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

It simply cannot be done.​

If you aren't a Liberal, you are un-American: History of liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Fuck America, it's a liberal wet dream and is falling apart... Don't believe me, just go back and look at your posts and threads pointing out how this nation is crumbling, don't take my word for it.

Once the pitchforks got the vote the game was up, and you are a pitchfork.

I once learned I needed to "invent" shields, if I wanted to practice medieval peasant "warfare" and charge my opponent with a pitchfork, to see who "chickens out" first.

 

[Preacher]

One thing they don't realize is a family that works together,does things for each other is socialism...

I call BS on that one, families work together voluntarily not because of coercion, you only need look at the families that screw each other over for proof of that. Socialism is a coercive form of government and requires the surrender of individual freedom. Then you have what Maggie Thatcher said, "socialism is great, till you run out of other peoples money". There is no where in the world that socialism has given the quality of life and equality they always promise, there always seems to be a ruling class that arises, they are never equal to anyone.

NS Germany



We will have this again one day.

 

[dblack]

The real poison of the left is identity politics of using one group against one another. The republicans need to be the party that says that this is wrong.

What you are describing is "corporatism", something you advocate for regularly.

 

[peach174]

The real poison of the left is identity politics of using one group against one another. The republicans need to be the party that says that this is wrong.

What you are describing is "corporatism", something you advocate for regularly.

No it isn't
It's called Labeling.
Whites against Blacks.
Poor against Rich.

 

[dblack]

The real poison of the left is identity politics of using one group against one another. The republicans need to be the party that says that this is wrong.

What you are describing is "corporatism", something you advocate for regularly.

No it isn't
It's called Labeling.
Whites against Blacks.
Poor against Rich.

Call it what you like, but the poison at the heart of it all is the idea that government should be the "coach" rather than the "referee".

 

[OKTexas]

One thing they don't realize is a family that works together,does things for each other is socialism...

I call BS on that one, families work together voluntarily not because of coercion, you only need look at the families that screw each other over for proof of that. Socialism is a coercive form of government and requires the surrender of individual freedom. Then you have what Maggie Thatcher said, "socialism is great, till you run out of other peoples money". There is no where in the world that socialism has given the quality of life and equality they always promise, there always seems to be a ruling class that arises, they are never equal to anyone.

NS Germany



We will have this again one day.

You do know you just proved my point, RIGHT?

 

[bripat9643]

The real poison of the left is identity politics of using one group against one another. The republicans need to be the party that says that this is wrong.

What you are describing is "corporatism", something you advocate for regularly.

No it isn't
It's called Labeling.
Whites against Blacks.
Poor against Rich.

Call it what you like, but the poison at the heart of it all is the idea that government should be the "coach" rather than the "referee".

The idea that you can have a fair referee who has a stake in the outcome is beyond ludicrous. That's one of the inherent fallacies of government.

 

[there4eyeM]

Any referee has a stake in an outcome: fairness and playing by the rules. That is the raison d'être for referees.

 

[bripat9643]

Any referee has a stake in an outcome: fairness and playing by the rules. That is the raison d'être for referees.

The federal government is often one of the disputants. It's as if a football game between the Seahawks and the Patriots were refereed by people on the Seahawk payroll. Almost every case that goes before the Supreme court is a dispute between the people and the government. The people always get screwed almost without exception.

"Fairness and playing by the rules" isn't the "raison d'être" for government. Doing what is best for government is the "raison d'être" for government.

 

[dblack]

The real poison of the left is identity politics of using one group against one another. The republicans need to be the party that says that this is wrong.

What you are describing is "corporatism", something you advocate for regularly.

No it isn't
It's called Labeling.
Whites against Blacks.
Poor against Rich.

Call it what you like, but the poison at the heart of it all is the idea that government should be the "coach" rather than the "referee".

The idea that you can have a fair referee who has a stake in the outcome is beyond ludicrous. That's one of the inherent fallacies of government.

The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is to prevent it from having a stake in the outcome.

 

[bripat9643]

The real poison of the left is identity politics of using one group against one another. The republicans need to be the party that says that this is wrong.

What you are describing is "corporatism", something you advocate for regularly.

No it isn't
It's called Labeling.
Whites against Blacks.
Poor against Rich.

Call it what you like, but the poison at the heart of it all is the idea that government should be the "coach" rather than the "referee".

The idea that you can have a fair referee who has a stake in the outcome is beyond ludicrous. That's one of the inherent fallacies of government.

The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is to prevent it from having a stake in the outcome.

Unfortunately it hasn't worked. Presidents have a vested interest in increasing the power of government. Congress has a vested interest in increasing the power of government. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in increasing the power of government.

How does the Constitution prevent government from increasing its own power?

 

[dblack]

What you are describing is "corporatism", something you advocate for regularly.

No it isn't
It's called Labeling.
Whites against Blacks.
Poor against Rich.

Call it what you like, but the poison at the heart of it all is the idea that government should be the "coach" rather than the "referee".

The idea that you can have a fair referee who has a stake in the outcome is beyond ludicrous. That's one of the inherent fallacies of government.

The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is to prevent it from having a stake in the outcome.

Unfortunately it hasn't worked. Presidents have a vested interest in increasing the power of government. Congress has a vested interest in increasing the power of government. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in increasing the power of government.

How does the Constitution prevent government from increasing its own power?

Only by the people's will to hold them to it's stated limits. That's what's been lost.

 

[Borillar]

I wish I could explain reality to a liberal Dumbocrap. But, that's impossible.

Clearly. Especially when you don't have a grasp of reality yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

No it isn't
It's called Labeling.
Whites against Blacks.
Poor against Rich.

Call it what you like, but the poison at the heart of it all is the idea that government should be the "coach" rather than the "referee".

The idea that you can have a fair referee who has a stake in the outcome is beyond ludicrous. That's one of the inherent fallacies of government.

The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is to prevent it from having a stake in the outcome.

Unfortunately it hasn't worked. Presidents have a vested interest in increasing the power of government. Congress has a vested interest in increasing the power of government. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in increasing the power of government.

How does the Constitution prevent government from increasing its own power?

Only by the people's will to hold them to it's stated limits. That's what's been lost.

Such consistency of will power has never been demonstrated, and it never will be. Government can always bribe a sufficient number of the populace to get a majority to approve what it wants. Once seniors get on the dole, they are never going to vote to repeal it.

Furthermore, it seldom even matters what people want. Did the people want Obamacare? All the polls said "no," but we got it anyway because the quislings in the Supreme Court sold us out, despite the clear unconstitutionality of forcing private citizens to purchase a commercial product.

There are so many ways that government can outmaneuver the voters that you just have to laugh at the naiveté of anyone who proposes reforming government by voting for better politicians. When politicians have to choose between doing the right thing and incurring the wrath bureaucrats, government employee unions and the Praetorian media, they are always got to choose the later.

 

[Andylusion]

Call it what you like, but the poison at the heart of it all is the idea that government should be the "coach" rather than the "referee".

The idea that you can have a fair referee who has a stake in the outcome is beyond ludicrous. That's one of the inherent fallacies of government.

The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is to prevent it from having a stake in the outcome.

Unfortunately it hasn't worked. Presidents have a vested interest in increasing the power of government. Congress has a vested interest in increasing the power of government. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in increasing the power of government.

How does the Constitution prevent government from increasing its own power?

Only by the people's will to hold them to it's stated limits. That's what's been lost.

Such consistency of will power has never been demonstrated, and it never will be. Government can always bribe a sufficient number of the populace to get a majority to approve what it wants. Once seniors get on the dole, they are never going to vote to repeal it.

Furthermore, it seldom even matters what people want. Did the people want Obamacare? All the polls said "no," but we got it anyway because the quislings in the Supreme Court sold us out, despite the clear unconstitutionality of forcing private citizens to purchase a commercial product.

There are so many ways that government can outmaneuver the voters that you just have to laugh at the naiveté of anyone who proposes reforming government by voting for better politicians. When politicians have to choose between doing the right thing and incurring the wrath bureaucrats, government employee unions and the Praetorian media, they are always got to choose the later.

My only quibble is that yeah, the polls said no, but the only poll that counts is at the ballot box. Romney had Romney care, and yet the republicans did in fact vote for the guy.

So both candidates offered gov-care solutions, and both got voted for by the public.

So the fact is, we did want it. And we got it. Yeah, AFTER we voted for a gov-care candidate, THEN we had polls saying we didn't want it.

I honestly believe the public got what it deserved. I think most of the nightmares inflicted on us by government, is largely because the idiotic public demanded it, and then cried when they get what they demanded.