Venezuelans who fled socialism destroy AOC

[Timmy]

You are stupid . Another idiot throwing around the word “socialism” as if you have a clue what it means .

Tell me, what socialism is AOC promoting ?

It cracks me up that you leftwing morons believe your critics don't know what the word "socialism" means. We know it better than you do.

Awesome . Then why don’t you educate me? Since you are sooooo well versed in socialism.

Socialism:

Government control of the means of production.​

And where is AOC calling for that ?

Green New Deal.

What about it ? It’s not government take over of industry .

 

[bripat9643]

Cannot add to it.

What does Venezuela have to do with AOC?

Are you pretending to be stupid?

Somehow, I doubt it.

You are stupid . Another idiot throwing around the word “socialism” as if you have a clue what it means .

Tell me, what socialism is AOC promoting ?

I’m gonna guess you think socialism means you can sit on your ass and play video games while getting paid.

What I think CONS Think is that “socialism “ is any time the government does somthing to help the common man.

That would be socialism, according to the definition. However, other things the government does are also socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

It cracks me up that you leftwing morons believe your critics don't know what the word "socialism" means. We know it better than you do.

Awesome . Then why don’t you educate me? Since you are sooooo well versed in socialism.

Socialism:

Government control of the means of production.​

And where is AOC calling for that ?

Green New Deal.

What about it ? It’s not government take over of industry .

ROFL. It sure as hell is.

 

[B. Kidd]

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

You're so far gone that you're never coming back to being a true American. That is, if you ever were one, to begin with.

 

[Timmy]

What does Venezuela have to do with AOC?

Are you pretending to be stupid?

Somehow, I doubt it.

You are stupid . Another idiot throwing around the word “socialism” as if you have a clue what it means .

Tell me, what socialism is AOC promoting ?

I’m gonna guess you think socialism means you can sit on your ass and play video games while getting paid.

What I think CONS Think is that “socialism “ is any time the government does somthing to help the common man.

That would be socialism, according to the definition. However, other things the government does are also socialism.

I find cons use the term to bash what they don’t like .

Food stamps = socialism
FEMA welfare for red state hillbilly tornado victims = NOT socialism.

 

[koshergrl]

Wait...so Sweden is not corrupt but socialism causes rampant corruption. But Sweden IS one of the more socialist nations on the planet.

Something is wrong with your claims here

Wait...so Sweden is not corrupt but socialism causes rampant corruption. But Sweden IS one of the more socialist nations on the planet.

Something is wrong with your claims here

Wait...so Sweden is not corrupt but socialism causes rampant corruption. But Sweden IS one of the more socialist nations on the planet.

Something is wrong with your claims here

My claim?
It was koshergrl who made it not me.

I didn't make any claims about Sweden.

I said socialism causes rampant corruption.

Yes but Lesh has a problem with the statement being the vast majority of socialism being corrupt, but not all are and those are very few in far in-between when they aren't .
Like Sweden.

SWEDEN ISN'T A SOCIALIST STATE. When the left pretends they are, they are lying (or just ignorant)

Sweden has taken on a few social programs, just as the US has...but they took those on after becoming wildly rich, and they do not have government mandated wages nor does the government control means of production. The people control the means of production locally, and they trade on the open, competitive market.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

Wait...so Sweden is not corrupt but socialism causes rampant corruption. But Sweden IS one of the more socialist nations on the planet.

Something is wrong with your claims here

Wait...so Sweden is not corrupt but socialism causes rampant corruption. But Sweden IS one of the more socialist nations on the planet.

Something is wrong with your claims here

Wait...so Sweden is not corrupt but socialism causes rampant corruption. But Sweden IS one of the more socialist nations on the planet.

Something is wrong with your claims here

My claim?
It was koshergrl who made it not me.

I didn't make any claims about Sweden.

I said socialism causes rampant corruption.

Yes but Lesh has a problem with the statement being the vast majority of socialism being corrupt, but not all are and those are very few in far in-between when they aren't .
Like Sweden.

SWEDEN ISN'T A SOCIALIST STATE. When the left pretends they are, they are lying (or just ignorant)

Sweden has taken on a few social programs, just as the US has...but they took those on after becoming wildly rich, and they do not have government mandated wages nor does the government control means of production. The people control the means of production locally, and they trade on the open, competitive market.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

Redistribution of wealth through taxes is the essence of socialism.

It might be one of the essences, but just because they've done that doesn't mark socialism as a *success*. Sweden hasn't had any huge financial *success* since the 1960s...when they IMPLEMENTED socialism.

"In the 1960s, Sweden started to redistribute wealth, which brought wealth creation to a halt. By the mid-1990s, the country had growing economic problems because it continued to redistribute wealth it wasn’t creating. It was at this juncture that many of the wealthy (ABBA band members included) and entrepreneurs were leaving Sweden. In 1994, Sweden began implementing the following measures designed to reverse this trend:

• Reduce Regulation
• Reduce Government Spending
• Reform their Welfare Programs
• Shrink their Government

"Sweden has continued on this path for the last 24 years, which has brought them a modest rate of growth, but not nearly as robust as pre-60s levels due to government taxation remaining high."

Is Sweden Socialist? No, but... | Jon Henschen

 

[bripat9643]

Are you pretending to be stupid?

Somehow, I doubt it.

You are stupid . Another idiot throwing around the word “socialism” as if you have a clue what it means .

Tell me, what socialism is AOC promoting ?

I’m gonna guess you think socialism means you can sit on your ass and play video games while getting paid.

What I think CONS Think is that “socialism “ is any time the government does somthing to help the common man.

That would be socialism, according to the definition. However, other things the government does are also socialism.

I find cons use the term to bash what they don’t like .

Food stamps = socialism
FEMA welfare for red state hillbilly tornado victims = NOT socialism.

Conservatives don't like socialists, so that's almost accurate. Food stamps are socialism and so is FEMA. Why should taxpayers in NYC pay the costs of living in a tornado zone?

 

[tycho1572]

Cannot add to it.

What does Venezuela have to do with AOC?

Are you pretending to be stupid?

Somehow, I doubt it.

You are stupid . Another idiot throwing around the word “socialism” as if you have a clue what it means .

Tell me, what socialism is AOC promoting ?

I’m gonna guess you think socialism means you can sit on your ass and play video games while getting paid.

What I think CONS Think is that “socialism “ is any time the government does somthing to help the common man.

I’m good with helping those who need help. Always have been.
I’m not good with supporting people like you.

 

[peach174]

My claim?
It was koshergrl who made it not me.

I didn't make any claims about Sweden.

I said socialism causes rampant corruption.

Yes but Lesh has a problem with the statement being the vast majority of socialism being corrupt, but not all are and those are very few in far in-between when they aren't .
Like Sweden.

SWEDEN ISN'T A SOCIALIST STATE. When the left pretends they are, they are lying (or just ignorant)

Sweden has taken on a few social programs, just as the US has...but they took those on after becoming wildly rich, and they do not have government mandated wages nor does the government control means of production. The people control the means of production locally, and they trade on the open, competitive market.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

My claim?
It was koshergrl who made it not me.

I didn't make any claims about Sweden.

I said socialism causes rampant corruption.

Yes but Lesh has a problem with the statement being the vast majority of socialism being corrupt, but not all are and those are very few in far in-between when they aren't .
Like Sweden.

SWEDEN ISN'T A SOCIALIST STATE. When the left pretends they are, they are lying (or just ignorant)

Sweden has taken on a few social programs, just as the US has...but they took those on after becoming wildly rich, and they do not have government mandated wages nor does the government control means of production. The people control the means of production locally, and they trade on the open, competitive market.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

Redistribution of wealth through taxes is the essence of socialism.

They aren't doing that.

Yes they are.
They pay 60% in taxes in order to get big government social programs.

 

[Andylusion]

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

LOL!!!!

You are looking at the results, and calling it the cause.

Corruption didn't cause Venezuela to implode. Socialism caused Venezuela to implode. Corruption is the result of socialism.

Two reasons for this.

1. Socialism is naturally the concentration of power, and power corrupt. Always has, always will.

2. People in power are never going to live like the public. If the economy crashes, they will find ways to keep themselves enriched.

People in power will either keep themselves rich by engaging in Capitalism legally, or they will keep themselves rich in Socialism through corruption.

By the way, this is true of all people in Socialism. Socialism makes everyone a criminal. The black market for food in Venezuela is rampant across the country. Because people will starve if they don't engage in the black market.

Same in Cuba. It's widely known people have alternate currency there... totally illegal because it subverts the socialist system.

Everyone engages in corruption under Socialism, because Socialism always fails.

How about places like the United Arab Emerits?

Well I'm not a scholar in every economy in the world obviously. I know a ton about the Nordic economies, because so many uninformed old people running for president refer to them as socialist, when there is nothing socialist about them.

Without doing any deep research, from what I've read the UAE is a entirely capitalist economy built on free-market and open trade principals.

If you mean corruption, well yes. Every government has corrupt at some level. The levels you see with Socialists countries is much much more extensive.

And again... it's because Socialism sucks so bad, that people almost have no choice but to engage in corruption. Hugo Chavez was famously ticked off that after he put in price controls, all the stores were empty of food. Then you found that farmers faced with going broke, were selling illegally to Columbia, and then Colombian smugglers were bringing the exact same rice back into Venezuela to sell illegally for a much higher price than the government policies.

And you say, how can that happen? Well the police were starving to, so they would shake down the smugglers for bribes, and let them pass.

Corruption and Socialism go hand in hand.

Now as for a Capitalist system, it's just the natural power and corruption.

Why do you think these big companies try to influence these government agencies?

AT&T famously argued before the FCC, that they should not have to buy a cell phone spectrum in every market. They should only have to buy spectrum for the entire country. They did not have a country-wide network, and didn't want to pay for a licenses in each market.

Then AT&T purchased up a bunch of small companies, and by purchasing companies with Cell Phone spectrum licenses, created nation wide coverage. They then argued before the FCC that everyone should have to buy spectrum licenses in each market. Now that they had a country wide network, they wanted to keep out competition.

Now let me ask you something..... Why did AT&T spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying the FCC?

Because they had the power to regulate the market, and AT&T could use that to their advantage.

If the FCC did not have the power to regulate the market.... if all they had the ability to do was make sure people were not infringing on the rights of others..... would AT&T be spending millions lobbying the FCC? Would they be taking regulators out on yachts?

No. They wouldn't. There would be no incentive, or reward for doing so.

The reason corruption like this exists, is because you give power to the government. When government has power, there will always be people trying to influence that power.

You take away these agencies, and the corruption will disappear with it.

This is what is so bonkers about the left, is that they openly push for more control, which directly results in more corruption. Then they complain about corruption, which is baffling.

I'm sure the same is true of the UAE.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't make any claims about Sweden.

I said socialism causes rampant corruption.

Yes but Lesh has a problem with the statement being the vast majority of socialism being corrupt, but not all are and those are very few in far in-between when they aren't .
Like Sweden.

SWEDEN ISN'T A SOCIALIST STATE. When the left pretends they are, they are lying (or just ignorant)

Sweden has taken on a few social programs, just as the US has...but they took those on after becoming wildly rich, and they do not have government mandated wages nor does the government control means of production. The people control the means of production locally, and they trade on the open, competitive market.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

I didn't make any claims about Sweden.

I said socialism causes rampant corruption.

Yes but Lesh has a problem with the statement being the vast majority of socialism being corrupt, but not all are and those are very few in far in-between when they aren't .
Like Sweden.

SWEDEN ISN'T A SOCIALIST STATE. When the left pretends they are, they are lying (or just ignorant)

Sweden has taken on a few social programs, just as the US has...but they took those on after becoming wildly rich, and they do not have government mandated wages nor does the government control means of production. The people control the means of production locally, and they trade on the open, competitive market.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

Redistribution of wealth through taxes is the essence of socialism.

They aren't doing that.

Yes they are.
They pay 60% in taxes in order to get big government social programs.

That is addressed in the supporting documentation from multiple, solid sources that I provided, and linked.

 

[koshergrl]

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

LOL!!!!

You are looking at the results, and calling it the cause.

Corruption didn't cause Venezuela to implode. Socialism caused Venezuela to implode. Corruption is the result of socialism.

Two reasons for this.

1. Socialism is naturally the concentration of power, and power corrupt. Always has, always will.

2. People in power are never going to live like the public. If the economy crashes, they will find ways to keep themselves enriched.

People in power will either keep themselves rich by engaging in Capitalism legally, or they will keep themselves rich in Socialism through corruption.

By the way, this is true of all people in Socialism. Socialism makes everyone a criminal. The black market for food in Venezuela is rampant across the country. Because people will starve if they don't engage in the black market.

Same in Cuba. It's widely known people have alternate currency there... totally illegal because it subverts the socialist system.

Everyone engages in corruption under Socialism, because Socialism always fails.

How about places like the United Arab Emerits?

Well I'm not a scholar in every economy in the world obviously. I know a ton about the Nordic economies, because so many uninformed old people running for president refer to them as socialist, when there is nothing socialist about them.

Without doing any deep research, from what I've read the UAE is a entirely capitalist economy built on free-market and open trade principals.

If you mean corruption, well yes. Every government has corrupt at some level. The levels you see with Socialists countries is much much more extensive.

And again... it's because Socialism sucks so bad, that people almost have no choice but to engage in corruption. Hugo Chavez was famously ticked off that after he put in price controls, all the stores were empty of food. Then you found that farmers faced with going broke, were selling illegally to Columbia, and then Colombian smugglers were bringing the exact same rice back into Venezuela to sell illegally for a much higher price than the government policies.

And you say, how can that happen? Well the police were starving to, so they would shake down the smugglers for bribes, and let them pass.

Corruption and Socialism go hand in hand.

Now as for a Capitalist system, it's just the natural power and corruption.

Why do you think these big companies try to influence these government agencies?

AT&T famously argued before the FCC, that they should not have to buy a cell phone spectrum in every market. They should only have to buy spectrum for the entire country. They did not have a country-wide network, and didn't want to pay for a licenses in each market.

Then AT&T purchased up a bunch of small companies, and by purchasing companies with Cell Phone spectrum licenses, created nation wide coverage. They then argued before the FCC that everyone should have to buy spectrum licenses in each market. Now that they had a country wide network, they wanted to keep out competition.

Now let me ask you something..... Why did AT&T spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying the FCC?

Because they had the power to regulate the market, and AT&T could use that to their advantage.

If the FCC did not have the power to regulate the market.... if all they had the ability to do was make sure people were not infringing on the rights of others..... would AT&T be spending millions lobbying the FCC? Would they be taking regulators out on yachts?

No. They wouldn't. There would be no incentive, or reward for doing so.

The reason corruption like this exists, is because you give power to the government. When government has power, there will always be people trying to influence that power.

You take away these agencies, and the corruption will disappear with it.

This is what is so bonkers about the left, is that they openly push for more control, which directly results in more corruption. Then they complain about corruption, which is baffling.

I'm sure the same is true of the UAE.

It's not baffling when you accept the fact that they are mentally ill, criminal, and brainwashed.

Then it all makes sense.

 

[Andylusion]

One party rule -- desired by Republicans
Government control of press -- desired by Republicans
Rejection of the rule of law -- desired by Republicans
Open corruption -- desired by Republicans
Authoritarianism -- desired by Republicans
Violence against opponents -- desired by Republicans
Cronyism, monopolism and socialism-by-corporation -- desired by Republicans

It's not a question of whether modern Republicans are like Stalinists. It's a question of whether they differ in any significant way. They don't. To be a Trumpflake, you have to be Stalinist to the core. If you're not, the rest of TheParty will turn on you. And given the violent nature of Trumpflakes, that's not a minor thing.

Wait..... wait what? Wa... WHAT? WHAT!?!?!

Government control of press? The "hush Rush" law, wasn't a Republican policy.

Wasn't Media Matters, started by the Hillary Clinton, designed to drive people off the air, by attacking all their sponsors and boycott all programs with opinions they didn't like?

Rejection of the rule of law? Wasn't it Obama himself who said he didn't have constitutional authority to do an executive order, and then went ahead and did it?

Open corruption? Wasn't it Hillary Clinton that had a private email server that she used professional erasing software on so we couldn't find out what was on it? Wasn't this well known, open, and documented?

Authoritarianism? Isn't it left-wingers that are telling me I have to bake a cake for a gay wedding, even if it violates my religious freedoms, or they will put me out of business?

Violence against opponents............................... Antifa is run by Republicans? Huh???

Cronyism, monopolism and socialism-by-corporation? Wasn't it Al Gore that had the Elk Hills oil reserve sold to Occidental Petroleum, which Al Gore had several hundred thousand in stock?

Wasn't it Bill Clinton that sold the Lincoln Bedroom, and games of golf to all kinds of CEOs, including executives of Enron?

You just described the Democrat left-wing dude.

 

[Andylusion]

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

LOL!!!!

You are looking at the results, and calling it the cause.

Corruption didn't cause Venezuela to implode. Socialism caused Venezuela to implode. Corruption is the result of socialism.

Two reasons for this.

1. Socialism is naturally the concentration of power, and power corrupt. Always has, always will.

2. People in power are never going to live like the public. If the economy crashes, they will find ways to keep themselves enriched.

People in power will either keep themselves rich by engaging in Capitalism legally, or they will keep themselves rich in Socialism through corruption.

By the way, this is true of all people in Socialism. Socialism makes everyone a criminal. The black market for food in Venezuela is rampant across the country. Because people will starve if they don't engage in the black market.

Same in Cuba. It's widely known people have alternate currency there... totally illegal because it subverts the socialist system.

Everyone engages in corruption under Socialism, because Socialism always fails.

How about places like the United Arab Emerits?

Well I'm not a scholar in every economy in the world obviously. I know a ton about the Nordic economies, because so many uninformed old people running for president refer to them as socialist, when there is nothing socialist about them.

Without doing any deep research, from what I've read the UAE is a entirely capitalist economy built on free-market and open trade principals.

If you mean corruption, well yes. Every government has corrupt at some level. The levels you see with Socialists countries is much much more extensive.

And again... it's because Socialism sucks so bad, that people almost have no choice but to engage in corruption. Hugo Chavez was famously ticked off that after he put in price controls, all the stores were empty of food. Then you found that farmers faced with going broke, were selling illegally to Columbia, and then Colombian smugglers were bringing the exact same rice back into Venezuela to sell illegally for a much higher price than the government policies.

And you say, how can that happen? Well the police were starving to, so they would shake down the smugglers for bribes, and let them pass.

Corruption and Socialism go hand in hand.

Now as for a Capitalist system, it's just the natural power and corruption.

Why do you think these big companies try to influence these government agencies?

AT&T famously argued before the FCC, that they should not have to buy a cell phone spectrum in every market. They should only have to buy spectrum for the entire country. They did not have a country-wide network, and didn't want to pay for a licenses in each market.

Then AT&T purchased up a bunch of small companies, and by purchasing companies with Cell Phone spectrum licenses, created nation wide coverage. They then argued before the FCC that everyone should have to buy spectrum licenses in each market. Now that they had a country wide network, they wanted to keep out competition.

Now let me ask you something..... Why did AT&T spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying the FCC?

Because they had the power to regulate the market, and AT&T could use that to their advantage.

If the FCC did not have the power to regulate the market.... if all they had the ability to do was make sure people were not infringing on the rights of others..... would AT&T be spending millions lobbying the FCC? Would they be taking regulators out on yachts?

No. They wouldn't. There would be no incentive, or reward for doing so.

The reason corruption like this exists, is because you give power to the government. When government has power, there will always be people trying to influence that power.

You take away these agencies, and the corruption will disappear with it.

This is what is so bonkers about the left, is that they openly push for more control, which directly results in more corruption. Then they complain about corruption, which is baffling.

I'm sure the same is true of the UAE.

It's not baffling when you accept the fact that they are mentally ill, criminal, and brainwashed.

Then it all makes sense.

Love you Kosher.

 

[peach174]

It cracks me up that you leftwing morons believe your critics don't know what the word "socialism" means. We know it better than you do.

Awesome . Then why don’t you educate me? Since you are sooooo well versed in socialism.

Socialism:

Government control of the means of production.​

And where is AOC calling for that ?

Green New Deal.

What about it ? It’s not government take over of industry .

It cracks me up that you leftwing morons believe your critics don't know what the word "socialism" means. We know it better than you do.

Awesome . Then why don’t you educate me? Since you are sooooo well versed in socialism.

Socialism:

Government control of the means of production.​

And where is AOC calling for that ?

Green New Deal.

What about it ? It’s not government take over of industry .

It cracks me up that you leftwing morons believe your critics don't know what the word "socialism" means. We know it better than you do.

Awesome . Then why don’t you educate me? Since you are sooooo well versed in socialism.

Socialism:

Government control of the means of production.​

And where is AOC calling for that ?

Green New Deal.

What about it ? It’s not government take over of industry .

An over abundance of government regulations is take over of industry, which the green new deal does.

 

[Timmy]

You are stupid . Another idiot throwing around the word “socialism” as if you have a clue what it means .

Tell me, what socialism is AOC promoting ?

I’m gonna guess you think socialism means you can sit on your ass and play video games while getting paid.

What I think CONS Think is that “socialism “ is any time the government does somthing to help the common man.

That would be socialism, according to the definition. However, other things the government does are also socialism.

I find cons use the term to bash what they don’t like .

Food stamps = socialism
FEMA welfare for red state hillbilly tornado victims = NOT socialism.

Conservatives don't like socialists, so that's almost accurate. Food stamps are socialism and so is FEMA. Why should taxpayers in NYC pay the costs of living in a tornado zone?

Kudos to you for at least being constistant !

Though safety nets aren’t socialism per se .

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

In other words...socialism destroyed that country. The very definition of socialism is corruption and authoritarianism.

 

[Timmy]

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

In other words...socialism destroyed that country. The very definition of socialism is corruption and authoritarianism.

No. That is not the very definition.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

In other words...socialism destroyed that country. The very definition of socialism is corruption and authoritarianism.

No. That is not the very definition.

Corruption and authoritarianism destroyed that country. Thus, Venezuela is a warning against giving power to Republicans.

In other words...socialism destroyed that country. The very definition of socialism is corruption and authoritarianism.

No. That is not the very definition.

Yes. It's using government to steal from others.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

One party rule -- desired by Republicans
Government control of press -- desired by Republicans

False, you fucking liar.

One party rule PRACTICED by the Stalinist democrats in California along with rigged show elections.

Rejection of the rule of law -- desired by Republicans
Open corruption -- desired by Republicans
Authoritarianism -- desired by Republicans
Violence against opponents -- desired by Republicans
Cronyism, monopolism and socialism-by-corporation -- desired by Republicans

It's not a question of whether modern Republicans are like Stalinists. It's a question of whether they differ in any significant way. They don't. To be a Trumpflake, you have to be Stalinist to the core. If you're not, the rest of TheParty will turn on you. And given the violent nature of Trumpflakes, that's not a minor thing.

Again, you're just a fucking liar spewing the exact opposite of reality. Are you insane or do you think your big lie shit will float?

When one is a fucking piece of shit like you, someone who is utterly devoid of integrity, there can be no debate. You call water dry and dirt clean, there is no way to converse with a fucking pig like you.