We had three choices

[Desk trauma]

Greece is broke...because of socialism.
Venezuela is broke because of socialism and cronyism.

It doesn't work. It wouldn't work here, but then again it might. Because we have so many people getting entitlements today.

Don't get me wrong. I do agree that there has to be some social changes. But that isn't what fixes the problems we have here. You can't get the right social changes, until you have the individuals change themselves. Sin is the problem.

I blame the churches for not doing their job. They started social work. They started the schools, they started the hospitals. But they let it go by the wayside, they ignored the God given laws and took to the money instead of doing what God intended for us to do.

Christ wasn't a socialist. He was for individual freedoms. If not He would have made everyone accept Him. He didn't, He told them the truth and then he let them figure it out, from the truth. Those that didn't get it, crucified Him, Those that did, followed Him.

He even taught about investing, read the story of the ten talents.
But for every thing He did. It all came down to one thing, save the lost.
By changing the hearts and minds of the individuals to repent and place their trust in Him. He had his followers. Not because he laid down a law and said, do it or else.

Even today, we should never witness the "Do it or else" approach. Show them they have sin in their lives. Give them the truth of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit convicts and then they have a choice. Either surrender and repent. Or don't, and if they don't let them know the consequences of that.

When you take from one to give to another, it promotes dishonesty, anger and resentment.

When you teach, to give from the heart in love, it promotes Love, charity, forgiveness, patience, longsuffering and wisdom...some of those are the fruits of the Spirit. Go figure.

When you take from one to give to another, so the other can continue taking, never contributing to the society he/she lives in. It also promotes dishonesty, anger and resentment. Plus laziness, false contentment and no will to invent or start something, in those who receive this so called free help.

Nope, socialism will not work here..too many individual thinking people here. If it were to start...it would creep up on us...as it's trying to do now.

You abandoned your claim that religious liberty would be ended. That was fast.

 

[smithed64]

You abandoned your claim that religious liberty would be ended. That was fast.

Where? It takes religious liberty to be able to go out and spread the Gospel. In countries where there is huge government overreach, you can't even to that. Some countries won't even let you own a bible.

No, I never abandoned the religious liberties. You have to have it, and big government doesn't like it. Because religious liberty, is the beginning of independent thinking. Why do you think America was started in the first place.

The people came here to get away from religious persecution, their liberty was being taken away, so they came here to worship freely.

So your wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

The primaries are rigged....we all know that......

I don't know if "rigged" is the correct term when the fact is that parties can select their nominees any way they want. What's more accurate is that they've not been honest with their members as to their true selection process.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you really want the Government telling you how to live, work, eat, raise your children and most especially who can and who cant Worship?
Yeah, I know it tries already to do a lot of this now. But Socialism would seal the deal with all this. Look, government can't even make people safe for voting right now and you want to trust your liberty with something that has proven to fail in few countries already.
Socialism is not even Biblical. It's anti religion and anti freedom. I'd rather keep what little bit of freedom I do have, than to turn it over all to big government.

No, you're talking about Totalitarianism, which is a form of government, not socialism, which is a form of economics.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah, I've heard good and bad about the UK just as you have heard about here.
But as I said. Never lived there, so don't have anything to say about it.

But I do know Americans, because I'm here. Socialism wont work. Oh, they'll try to get it going...there may be some things that pass...Obamacare for example....but it isn't a full consensus

That's because the US is dominated by people who don't give a darned about other other people.

 

[tatteredsoul]

For the people

We had the offer of Bernie Sanders to run the country for the people, all of the people. He was rejected, crucially by the DNC, but also by the Democratic voters of California.

Increasing the positives
He was in favor of fixing the roads and other infrastructure, and fixing the school system - something a Jewish person would be ideally suited to do.

reducing the negatives
And on our huge losses, breaking up the too-big-to-fail big banks which are costing the country more than the trade deficit and the military adventures combined.


All pretty obvious stuff I thought

You can always abstain.

I know that sounds like a punk way, but think about it in this context:

Abstaining from sex in a generation of silver bullet-resistant STDs is not the "punk" thing to do, or a "cop-out."

Now, you can always engage and wear protection. But, protection isn't 100%.

Or, you can wear no protection.

You have choices.


In an election where BOTH candidates have lied, and exhibited some disgusting characteristics why is there only the choice of "no protection, or protection with the hope of safety" here (to extend the metaphor)?

Why, if both are truly "evils," would you choose to vote for either? Your choice makes you responsible for the consequences as much as it highlights your political, economic and social alignment.

And, let''s not forget the electoral college is the "parental guidence" for US elections anyway. It isn't over until Mommy/Daddy electoral college chooses someone. Not that the vote doesn't matter, but in some elections it can be a glorified poll (especially in elections in which a candidate wins the popular vote, but the EC chooses a different candidate.)

 

[Desk trauma]

Where?

When you suddenly stopped mentioning it after your first post claiming that socialism was going to stamp out religious liberty in the US.

It takes religious liberty to be able to go out and spread the Gospel. In countries where there is huge government overreach, you can't even to that. Some countries won't even let you own a bible.

In which if the European countries that are pointed to as examples of democratic socialism is that the case? When liberals in the US talk about socialism they are talking of Norway not North Korea.

No, I never abandoned the religious liberties. You have to have it, and big government doesn't like it. Because religious liberty, is the beginning of independent thinking. Why do you think America was started in the first place.

People wanting their rights as English men restored, revolutionarys trying to implement enlightenment ideas, dissatisfaction with the policy of the crown...

 

[Desk trauma]

And, let''s not forget the electoral college is the "parental guidence" for US elections anyway. It isn't over until Mommy/Daddy electoral college chooses someone.

The majority of states have laws that bind electors to the popular vote of that state. The rest would have them in short order if they had any major issues with faithless electors. If an election was turned by faithless electors I imagine that would be the end of the EC as it currently exists.

Not that the vote doesn't matter, but in some elections it can be a glorified poll (especially in elections in which a candidate wins the popular vote, but the EC chooses a different candidate.)

Which can only happen when the margin is razor thin such as the 2000 election.

 

[tatteredsoul]

The majority of states have laws that bind electors to the popular vote of that state. The rest would have them in short order if they had any major issues with faithless electors. If an election was turned by faithless electors I imagine that would be the end of the EC as it currently exists.



Which can only happen when the margin is razor thin such as the 2000 election.

Razor thin margins are a big deal when BOTH side are claiming voting fraud.

And, the EC will never go away as long as America is 50+ states strong. Even a 34 state America would demand an electoral college.

 

[LoAmmi]

Razor thin margins are a big deal when BOTH side are claiming voting fraud.

And, the EC will never go away as long as America is 50+ states strong. Even a 34 state America would demand an electoral college.

If you had one person win in a complete landslide and the EC voted the other person in, you might see change. Granted, you'd probably see massive riots and the person who was voted in the EC go into complete hiding.

 

[smithed64]

When you suddenly stopped mentioning it after your first post claiming that socialism was going to stamp out religious liberty in the US.

In which if the European countries that are pointed to as examples of democratic socialism is that the case? When liberals in the US talk about socialism they are talking of Norway not North Korea.

Norway, has a lot going for them. But they also have had this type of government for some time. It also helps to be the smallest populated nations 5 068 421 people isn't that hard to keep up with things. Compared to the 322.5 Million (Estimated) in America...Now take all those different cultures and you have a huge mishmash of people...Many of which have never been on a welfare state situation.

People wanting their rights as English men restored, revolutionarys trying to implement enlightenment ideas, dissatisfaction with the policy of the crown...

Your right, but Norway is not America. They are not raised as we are. Even their

Socialism won't work here.

 

[LoAmmi]

Socialism won't work here because people don't want it to work here, basically. I do get a big kick out of people telling me how the Bible supports Capitalism when the ideal society outlined by it involves people not actually owning anything, the poor having access to free food, and people commanded to give ten percent of their earnings to the Temple and at least some to the poor.

 

[tatteredsoul]

If you had one person win in a complete landslide and the EC voted the other person in, you might see change. Granted, you'd probably see massive riots and the person who was voted in the EC go into complete hiding.

Right.

I have always been on the other side of the spectrum to expose:

Secretly, "No one" vote, but somehow someone wins by a quantifiably impossible amount of votes (by 1.6 million votes when only 400,000 voted, for example.)

I think the psychological seedlings of "fraud," Russian hacking and such are driving toward the riot aspect. But, I doubt the attention will be put on the true problems of which the EC is one.

 

[Desk trauma]

Norway, has a lot going for them. But they also have had this type of government for some time. It also helps to be the smallest populated nations 5 068 421 people isn't that hard to keep up with things. Compared to the 322.5 Million (Estimated) in America...Now take all those different cultures and you have a huge mishmash of people...Many of which have never been on a welfare state situation.

What does any of that have to do with the issue of religious liberty? Please point to the removal of religious liberty is the european countries that US liberal say we should emulate.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Socialism won't work here because people don't want it to work here, basically. I do get a big kick out of people telling me how the Bible supports Capitalism when the ideal society outlined by it involves people not actually owning anything, the poor having access to free food, and people commanded to give ten percent of their earnings to the Temple and at least some to the poor.

Yes, unfortunately you appear to be right.

America pours out huge amounts of government money to wars, injured veterans, banks, and the 'defense industry' where most of it just gets wasted.

Americans would prefer the money not to go to anyone who needs it but to the very very rich who will soon just take it all out of the country anyway.

 

[RDKirk]

Socialism won't work here because people don't want it to work here, basically. I do get a big kick out of people telling me how the Bible supports Capitalism when the ideal society outlined by it involves people not actually owning anything, the poor having access to free food, and people commanded to give ten percent of their earnings to the Temple and at least some to the poor.

Let's not forget forgiveness of debts and return of property to original bequeathments.

 

[RDKirk]

I think the psychological seedlings of "fraud," Russian hacking and such are driving toward the riot aspect. But, I doubt the attention will be put on the true problems of which the EC is one.

Something I learned long ago was: "Don't throw away someone else's solution unless you know the problem it solved, know whether the problem still exists, and have another solution ready."

The purpose of the EC was to give more rural states an effective vote. So if you do away with the Electoral College, all elections will go to the states with the largest cities and the states with smaller cities will essentially have no voting power.

How do you propose to resolve that problem?

 

[tatteredsoul]

Something I learned long ago was: "Don't throw away someone else's solution unless you know the problem it solved, know whether the problem still exists, and have another solution ready."

The purpose of the EC was to give more rural states an effective vote. So if you do away with the Electoral College, all elections will go to the states with the largest cities and the states with smaller cities will essentially have no voting power.

How do you propose to resolve that problem?

First, I would ask if we are a democracy, or a [constitutional] republic.

What we expect from voting suggest democracy, but the execution of the country is at best a republic.

But, it is really an oligarchy; votes never mattered. That is the kicker. They have always been bought.

My solution? Dissolve the States into respective soverign terriroties, annihilate the "united" in USA. The states are aleady failing in keeping federal officials from criminalizing activity states have deemed legal.

 

[RDKirk]

First, I would ask if we are a democracy, or a [constitutional] republic.

What we expect from voting suggest democracy, but the execution of the country is at best a republic.

It was never intended to be a democracy. If children were taught American history more accurately, everyone would know that. The Founding Fathers severely distrusted true democracies, and had good reason.

But, it is really an oligarchy; votes never mattered. That is the kicker. They have always been bought.

My solution? Dissolve the States into respective soverign terriroties, annihilate the "united" in USA. The states are aleady failing in keeping federal officials from criminalizing activity states have deemed legal.

That's not the solution to oligarchy, though. That's only "doing something." The "sovereign territory" thing has already been tried in America and it didn't work. The federal government hasn't actually proven to be a failure as a government, regardless of who holds the power.

 

[tatteredsoul]

It was never intended to be a democracy. If children were taught American history more accurately, everyone would know that. The Founding Fathers severely distrusted true democracies, and had good reason.



That's not the solution to oligarchy, though. That's only "doing something." The "sovereign territory" thing has already been tried in America and it didn't work. The federal government hasn't actually proven to be a failure as a government, regardless of who holds the power.

Perhaps my perspective is different since I am an expatriate, but also raised in Texas.

I don't think it would solve an oligarchy, or monopoly problem. But, it would take care of states' sovereignty in legislation, and insurance of its citizens voice.

Trying to represent 3,000 counties of different size is much harder than representing 60 counties - assuming an average of 60 counties per state (3000 counties in the States.)

Dissolve the states. Standardize a commodity-backed currency. Enforce sovereignty through citizens.

At the end of the day, both of us can come up with the most erudite solutions for revolutionizing the entire system. But, if the people don't hold the feet to the fire we will just get the same thing on a smaller scale.

My ultimate solution? A purge of ignorance, and influx of knowledge and education. That will never happen, though, so I am stuck speculating political and economic solutions.