Trump just went full Infowars

[rjs330]

Do you have a citation for this?



What, exactly to think they have in mind (geographically) when they prefer "socialist democrats". I mean do have a country they might want the U.S. to emulate.

I think the socialists for the most part like countries that are a mix of strong socialist ideas with some private ownership with some capitalism. Countries like the UK or Norway are some of the favorites. The push is to go that direction.

 

[rjs330]

What makes you think that "socialist democrats" are not part of the "American way of life?" Maybe your definition of the American way of life is just too partisan and self-serving.

I think he's referring to the difference between how the country was founded and how it operated for years until the socialistic agenda began in the 30's. The old way of the American way of individual and business independence is being pushed aside for a more European style of government dependence of individuals and businesses. A socialistic agenda that was not supported by the founders or the Constitution.

 

[Speedwell]

I think he's referring to the difference between how the country was founded and how it operated for years until the socialistic agenda began in the 30's. The old way of the American way of individual and business independence is being pushed aside for a more European style of government dependence of individuals and businesses. A socialistic agenda that was not supported by the founders or the Constitution.

Which was not even thought of by the Founders when they wrote the Constitution and which arose to counter problems which they were in no position to foresee. The limited liability corporation, for instance, the foundation of modern corporate enterprise, was not introduced until 1811. Unchecked, it gave rise to rampant exploitation of labor and the domination of the economy by corporate monopolies characteristic of the "Gilded Age." Is that the Conservative utopia you are dreaming of? Is anything else to be denounced as "unAmerican?"

 

[rjs330]

Which was not even thought of by the Founders when they wrote the Constitution and which arose to counter problems which they were in no position to foresee. The limited liability corporation, for instance, the foundation of modern corporate enterprise, was not introduced until 1811. Unchecked, it gave rise to rampant exploitation of labor and the domination of the economy by corporate monopolies characteristic of the "Gilded Age." Is that the Conservative utopia you are dreaming of? Is anything else to be denounced as "unAmerican?"

Don't be silly. What's unAmerican is socialism. That includes the mesh of business and government. Bailouts? Corporate welfare? That's part of the issue you know. We are not talking about reasonable regulations. That's a different topic. European style socialism is what the socialists want. That is not what the founders set up. That was not the original vision of this country and one would have to be blind not to see that.

We know that sometimes adjustments must be made and we do have a representative government to that. And if the people vote for folks that will bring socialism then that's what the people want cause thats who they voted for. But we can't pretend that socialism is what the founding of this country was based upon.

 

[Speedwell]

Don't be silly. What's unAmerican is socialism. That includes the mesh of business and government. Bailouts? Corporate welfare? That's part of the issue you know. We are not talking about reasonable regulations. That's a different topic. European style socialism is what the socialists want. That is not what the founders set up. That was not the original vision of this country and one would have to be blind not to see that.

We know that sometimes adjustments must be made and we do have a representative government to that. And if the people vote for folks that will bring socialism then that's what the people want cause thats who they voted for. But we can't pretend that socialism is what the founding of this country was based upon.

And my point was that it wan't based on corporate capitalism either.

But your reply seems a little confused. Some of the problems you allude to like bailouts and corporate welfare are characteristic of right-wing policy rather than socialism. I think if you are going to use "European-style socialism" as a boogyman you ought to be particular about which aspects of it you really dislike.

 

[KCfromNC]

Don't be silly. What's unAmerican is socialism. That includes the mesh of business and government. Bailouts? Corporate welfare? That's part of the issue you know. We are not talking about reasonable regulations. That's a different topic. European style socialism is what the socialists want. That is not what the founders set up. That was not the original vision of this country and one would have to be blind not to see that.

We know that sometimes adjustments must be made and we do have a representative government to that. And if the people vote for folks that will bring socialism then that's what the people want cause thats who they voted for. But we can't pretend that socialism is what the founding of this country was based upon.

I also can't pretend to take stuff like this seriously. I mean sure, SOCIALISM! is enough to scare some low information voters, but if you included some actual facts here it might be more convincing to a wider audience.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Rightists have George Soros, the Deep State, and the globalist elite. The Leftists have the Koch Brothers (at least until recently when they didn't seem very pro-Trump), Russia, and the alt-right.

They're not opposite sides of the same coin...at least not in terms of how they're invoked by the opposing side with regards to their level of influence.

For instance, there are plenty of folks on the right who sincerely believe George Soros is secretly writing big checks to have people bused in to protest so that the left wing media can get it on camera as a propaganda device.

The left wing criticism of the Koch Brothers rarely goes passed the fact that they're big time influences with their donations and political action committees they use as their proxies.

...and I'm not aware of any conspiracy theories about the alt-right coming from the left. Usually when the left wants to bash them, they just link actual articles and content published by the alt-right publications themselves.


People really need to abandon this myth of equivalency...I know people desperately want to defend their own side by suggesting that "both sides have bad eggs, and the lunacy isn't exclusive to one side". Fact of the matter is, the lunacy, in present day, skews much more right than left.

Even if you review some public opinion polling from Fox News (so no left wing bias there), 40% of republicans will basically willfully embrace any conspiracy theory that attacks the left with very little coaxing required.

Is there a left-wing conspiracy about the right, as preposterous, and as lacking in substance, as the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy, that 40% of the left believes? ...and not only believes, but wears as a badge of honor?

 

[rjs330]

I also can't pretend to take stuff like this seriously. I mean sure, SOCIALISM! is enough to scare some low information voters, but if you included some actual facts here it might be more convincing to a wider audience.

When you can show me in the Constitution the support for socialism and in the founders writings the support for such then I would be willing to consider it as American from the start.

 

[Speedwell]

When you can show me in the Constitution the support for socialism and in the founders writings the support for such then I would be willing to consider it as American from the start.

When you can show me in the Constitution and the founders' writings explicit support for corporate capitalism, then I will agree that it is "more American" than socialism. That should take you a while, since corporate capitalism did not exist when the Constitution was written. In the meantime, whenever you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, consider the fact that it was written by a socialist.

 

[KCfromNC]

When you can show me in the Constitution the support for socialism and in the founders writings the support for such then I would be willing to consider it as American from the start.

What actual policies are you confusing with SOCIALSM! here?

 

[Belk]

When you can show me in the Constitution the support for socialism and in the founders writings the support for such then I would be willing to consider it as American from the start.

Apparently all branches of the military except the Navy are not "American from the start"?

 

[iluvatar5150]

i'll wait until something more concrete comes up to make any negative judgements - from everything i have heard about the man he is honorable -

uncorroborated negative msm reports are not believable to me - if i don't hear it from my sources i have a hard time believing it - my sources report the truth about both sides - in a calm factual way

Which sources are those?

 

[rjs330]

When you can show me in the Constitution and the founders' writings explicit support for corporate capitalism, then I will agree that it is "more American" than socialism. That should take you a while, since corporate capitalism did not exist when the Constitution was written. In the meantime, whenever you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, consider the fact that it was written by a socialist.

Thank you for making my point. The Constitution was based upon the freedom of the individual. That included the individuals business. I've NEVER said there should be no regulations on businesses. Socialism is not the same thing as reasonable regulation.

The founders and the Constitution supported individual freedom with individual responsibility. It was the opposite of socialism. It was about limiting governments interference in our lives. You and others like you WANT more government which is ABSOLUTELY not the founders views.

 

[rjs330]

What actual policies are you confusing with SOCIALSM! here?

I don't think there is any confusion as to what socialism is.
Socialism for Dummies - Socialism in Simple Terms

 

[rjs330]

Apparently all branches of the military except the Navy are not "American from the start"?

Perhaps this will help.
What does the Constitution say about the military? – yourmilitarystory.com

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you for making my point. The Constitution was based upon the freedom of the individual. That included the individuals business. I've NEVER said there should be no regulations on businesses. Socialism is not the same thing as reasonable regulation.

The founders and the Constitution supported individual freedom with individual responsibility. It was the opposite of socialism. It was about limiting governments interference in our lives. You and others like you WANT more government which is ABSOLUTELY not the founders views.

What we want is laws and institutions which will protect us from the unchecked power of of corporate enterprise. What we want is social infrastructure which will compensate for the decline in free markets, particularly a free market in labor.

 

[Belk]

Perhaps this will help.
What does the Constitution say about the military? – yourmilitarystory.com

You read where we are not to have a standing army for longer then two years? So it is not "American from the start" by your criteria, correct?

 

[chuckpeterson]

 

[rjs330]

What we want is laws and institutions which will protect us from the unchecked power of of corporate enterprise. What we want is social infrastructure which will compensate for the decline in free markets, particularly a free market in labor.

I certainly won't argue against unchecked power of corporate Enterprise. We do have corporate socialism and I am totally against that. Businesses are made up of people from the mailroom guy to the cEO. Everyone and all those in-between. Which is good for our econonmy.
Are you for corporate socialism like the bailouts?

 

[rjs330]

What we want is laws and institutions which will protect us from the unchecked power of of corporate enterprise. What we want is social infrastructure which will compensate for the decline in free markets, particularly a free market in labor.

What exactly does rhe social infrastructure look like?