2024 US Presidential Election

First topic message reminder :

Thought we should have a thread on it, as Ron DeSantis is expected to launch his campaign on Twitter this evening. He's trailing Trump by a big margin for the Republican nomination, around 37% behind in the polling average. But there's a lot of time for things to change and the oddsmakers only have DeSantis as a 2/1 outsider, against Trump's 2/5. Doesn't appear to be any other serious contenders for the Republican nomination at this point.

Biden is expected to run again and defend his crown, but his advancing age (he's into his 80s now) and low approval ratings means he may be vulnerable to a Democratic challenger. The most likely challenger seems to be Robert Kennedy Jr. who has already announced his candidacy and has polled as high as 21%, but that was still 49% behind Biden. As such, Biden's a 2/9 clear favourite to be the Democrat nominee in 2024, but if he drops out for whatever reason then the race is wide open.

Only 531 days until the election...

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

Yep and he Banned Trade Unions.......Didn't believe in free healthcare....Wages dropped substantially between 33-39......

"Hatred of freedom or dissent......".....Bollox...

Socialism sets more people free by fairer division of wealth...Better Social mobility.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

In the name? Like 'goon'? Noun INFORMAL 1. a stupid, foolish, or eccentric person.

Here's an article for you to debunk. The last line says "The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Soul Requiem wrote:That isn't what socialism or fascism are.

Socialism- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Fascism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

You are describing the same thing, but giving fluffy words for one, and a harsh framing for the other.

How does the "community" own the entire economic structure? Via the party, who runs the party? The leader. Stalin was simply owning the means of production on behalf of the workers of Russia. If you opposed the dear leader, I guess you were an evil capitalist or Kulak. No food for you.

although maybe it wasn't real socialism...

Socialism "could" work in a community of like 100 ppl or less. After that, it's just tyranny with fluffy words.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:That isn't what socialism or fascism are.

Socialism- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Fascism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

You are describing the same thing, but giving fluffy words for one, and a harsh framing for the other.

How does the "community" own the entire economic structure? Via the party, who runs the party? The leader. Stalin was simply owning the means of production on behalf of the workers of Russia. If you opposed the dear leader, I guess you were an evil capitalist or Kulak. No food for you.

although maybe it wasn't real socialism...

Socialism "could" work in a community of like 100 ppl or less. After that, it's just tyranny with fluffy words.

You're confusing communist dictatorial states and socialism, they are not the same thing. I'm not surprised you're unable to differentiate.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

That's not socialism, except according to Americans (and increasingly the UK) where it's a swear word. You're conflating the U.S.S.R. and similar places (i.e. Cambodia under Khmer Rouge etc) as the only possible forms of socialism.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

In the name? Like 'goon'? Noun INFORMAL 1. a stupid, foolish, or eccentric person.

Here's an article for you to debunk. The last line says "The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

So Hilter called himself a socialist, but isn't? Ascends to power in the same way other socialist leaders of the 20th century.

I thought what happened in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba was actually common knowledge. These were socialism in action.

I think it is interesting that the author states that it's in the interest of the right to distance itself from the nazis. Wouldn't the left want to too?

If I quote from Dinesh D'Souza's book, have I just debunked your debunk?

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

In the name? Like 'goon'? Noun INFORMAL 1. a stupid, foolish, or eccentric person.

Here's an article for you to debunk. The last line says "The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

So Hilter called himself a socialist, but isn't? Ascends to power in the same way other socialist leaders of the 20th century.

Pinochet was left wing was he.......

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

That's not socialism, except according to Americans (and increasingly the UK) where it's a swear word. You're conflating the U.S.S.R. and similar places (i.e. Cambodia under Khmer Rouge etc) as the only possible forms of socialism.

Have you just made the "not real socialism" argument? Will you complete my bingo card and tell me it's never been tried?

Amazing.

Do you have an example of "real" socialism then?

What were then?

the-goon2 wrote:So Hilter called himself a socialist, but isn't?

Correct.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:So Hilter called himself a socialist, but isn't?

Correct.

Calls himself one, and acts like one (see below). But not one. Ok.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Well, I now have a difficult decision. Do I go with you, or with hundreds of academics in the field, over the last 90 years? Hmmmm......

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:So Hilter called himself a socialist, but isn't?

Correct.

Calls himself one, and acts like one (see below). But not one. Ok.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism communism

Planned economy. Same as socialism communism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism communism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism communism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism communism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

It seems a common trend that Americans cannot differentiate between Socialism and Communism. Bernie Sanders is the former and doesn't adhere to any of your points.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:So Hilter called himself a socialist, but isn't?

Correct.

Calls himself one, and acts like one (see below). But not one. Ok.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism communism

Planned economy. Same as socialism communism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism communism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism communism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism communism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

It seems a common trend that Americans cannot differentiate between Socialism and Communism. Bernie Sanders is the former and doesn't adhere to any of your points.

I'm not American. One inevitably leads to the other so to differentiate is to split hairs. Bernie is the useful idiot that let's the viper in, only to be lined up against the wall to be shot when the revolution succeeds.

Show me an example of your definition of socialism.

The UK under Clement Attlee would be Socialism rather than communism, not defined by oppression or anything you've quoted it to be. Socialism and Communism are both on the political left but that doesn't mean they're the same. You're simply defining a dictatorship rather than any actual political theory or are you nor smart enough to work that out yourself?

Soul Requiem wrote:The UK under Clement Attlee would be Socialism rather than communism, not defined by oppression or anything you've quoted it to be. Socialism and Communism are both on the political left but that doesn't mean they're the same. You're simply defining a dictatorship rather than any actual political theory or are you nor smart enough to work that out yourself?

Really. There were no private property rights under Attlee? No private businesses?

You are aware that private ownership of means of production isn't possible in a socialist state

You have described a social democracy in a mixed economy.

The UK has trade unions, the NHS, tons of social welfare today. Is it also socialist now? Except for a few industries being privatized (but heavily subsided) today's Britain sounds pretty similar.

According to that logic, the USA cannot be described as conservative or capitalist because the people there pay taxes for services like Medicare, the armed forces and the police.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

Pr4wn wrote:According to that logic, the USA cannot be described as conservative or capitalist because the people there pay taxes for services like Medicare, the armed forces and the police.

You're embarrassing yourself.

How so? you've made no sense.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

Yeah, we have any kind of debate on this, we would need to define our terms.

I'm happy to go with Soul's definition. My issue is that his example doesn't match it at all. But Mao's China does...

Lenin and many other socialist thinkers didn't differentiate between Socialism and Communism, one would lead to another. And that's exactly what happened.

Just out of curiosity where would a black or muslim or Jewish or Chinese supremacist fall on your political scale? Why single out the poor whites?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

I'm more of a Roosevelt New Deal guy than an out an out Socialist.....I'm for aspiration with a heart..

But as everyone on here is Center right I just look like one.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

I'm more of a Roosevelt New Deal guy than an out an out Socialist.....I'm for aspiration with a heart..

But as everyone on here is Center right I just look like one.....

Duty's laughing because he's far right!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty's laughing because he's far right!

You're not my Fuhrer, I'm not listening to you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

I'm more of a Roosevelt New Deal guy than an out an out Socialist.....I'm for aspiration with a heart..

But as everyone on here is Center right I just look like one.....

Didn't you say earlier today that you'd vote for Boris Johnson over Labour?

As one who has been known to vote on both sides of the political divide (as I tend to value competence over ideology in government) , I would suggest that socialism gets a bad rap these days largely because of the extreme versions seen in a number of places that really don't seem to have worked very well for the bulk of the populations concerned.

To be honest , I reckon what one might call "true socialism" is just a little too utopian to ever be successful given the imperfections of human nature. As Julius points out , few serious political aspirants espouse the old doctrine ; but even those right of centre have adopted some of the more practical aspects of the basic idea.

End of the day it's just a word really. The true difference between forms of government is whether or not the people - rather than the army - get to choose who is running the country. Dictators come from both right and left ..with similar results.

Not sure what we are actually arguing about here : except that the goon apparently wants to equate Hitler's rule with socialism - which makes little sense to me ...

But perhaps I have got lost somewhere in this increasingly tangled thread

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

That's not socialism, except according to Americans (and increasingly the UK) where it's a swear word. You're conflating the U.S.S.R. and similar places (i.e. Cambodia under Khmer Rouge etc) as the only possible forms of socialism.

Have you just made the "not real socialism" argument? Will you complete my bingo card and tell me it's never been tried?

Amazing.

Do you have an example of "real" socialism then?

What were then?

You're not worth it. You're mistaking dictators/dictatorship w/ anything else. Left? Right? Who cares?

the-goon2 wrote:I thought what happened in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba...

So, loosely: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mugabe, Minh, Castro.

All you're interested in is a black/white view of a complex World and trying to convince yourself that you're right about everything. You're apparently too ignorant to realise your black/white view of everything is simplistic and I'm not interested in your obvious assumptions that only your view is correct.

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

That's not socialism, except according to Americans (and increasingly the UK) where it's a swear word. You're conflating the U.S.S.R. and similar places (i.e. Cambodia under Khmer Rouge etc) as the only possible forms of socialism.

Have you just made the "not real socialism" argument? Will you complete my bingo card and tell me it's never been tried?

Amazing.

Do you have an example of "real" socialism then?

What were then?

You're not worth it. You're mistaking dictators/dictatorship w/ anything else. Left? Right? Who cares?

the-goon2 wrote:I thought what happened in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba...

So, loosely: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mugabe, Minh, Castro.

All you're interested in is a black/white view of a complex World and trying to convince yourself that you're right about everything. You're apparently too ignorant to realise your black/white view of everything is simplistic and I'm not interested in your obvious assumptions that only your view is correct.

Well at least we agree they were forms of socialism. Which means that countries that pursue a socialist system have the very real threat of going down that path. There plenty of other Eastern European, Latin and African countries I didn't mention that also fell into tyranny.

Venezuela is walking down this well travelled path right now.

How many socialist experiments could you mark as success vs failure?

How many more Venezuela's need to happen before we think, "hey maybe we shouldn't give the government more power and control over our lives?".

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

That's not socialism, except according to Americans (and increasingly the UK) where it's a swear word. You're conflating the U.S.S.R. and similar places (i.e. Cambodia under Khmer Rouge etc) as the only possible forms of socialism.

Have you just made the "not real socialism" argument? Will you complete my bingo card and tell me it's never been tried?

Amazing.

Do you have an example of "real" socialism then?

What were then?

You're not worth it. You're mistaking dictators/dictatorship w/ anything else. Left? Right? Who cares?

the-goon2 wrote:I thought what happened in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba...

So, loosely: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mugabe, Minh, Castro.

All you're interested in is a black/white view of a complex World and trying to convince yourself that you're right about everything. You're apparently too ignorant to realise your black/white view of everything is simplistic and I'm not interested in your obvious assumptions that only your view is correct.

Well at least we agree they were forms of socialism. Which means that countries that pursue a socialist system have the very real threat of going down that path. There plenty of other Eastern European, Latin and African countries I didn't mention that also fell into tyranny.

Venezuela is walking down this well travelled path right now.

How many socialist experiments could you mark as success vs failure?

How many more Venezuela's need to happen before we think, "hey maybe we shouldn't give the government more power and control over our lives?".

I'd imagine that a common thread w/ most dictators is that they sell the idea of a socialist model to the people of their country, but they too often actually don't give a 4X about those people. Why wouldn't you sell that idea? Tell the people that they'll all be better off etc etc if they let so-and-so be President etc. There've been more than enough right-wing dictatorships to suggest this isn't an issue caused by any form of actual socialism - Franco, Mussolini, Galtieri et al, Marcos, Bolsonaro, Erdogan(?)...

For the others (that perhaps start out w/ good intentions but fall off the wagon), suspect the power and access to wealth goes to their heads. So, a flaw of humans themselves. Of the political left or right? I don't think it matters.

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

That's not socialism, except according to Americans (and increasingly the UK) where it's a swear word. You're conflating the U.S.S.R. and similar places (i.e. Cambodia under Khmer Rouge etc) as the only possible forms of socialism.

Have you just made the "not real socialism" argument? Will you complete my bingo card and tell me it's never been tried?

Amazing.

Do you have an example of "real" socialism then?

What were then?

You're not worth it. You're mistaking dictators/dictatorship w/ anything else. Left? Right? Who cares?

the-goon2 wrote:I thought what happened in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba...

So, loosely: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mugabe, Minh, Castro.

All you're interested in is a black/white view of a complex World and trying to convince yourself that you're right about everything. You're apparently too ignorant to realise your black/white view of everything is simplistic and I'm not interested in your obvious assumptions that only your view is correct.

Well at least we agree they were forms of socialism. Which means that countries that pursue a socialist system have the very real threat of going down that path. There plenty of other Eastern European, Latin and African countries I didn't mention that also fell into tyranny.

Venezuela is walking down this well travelled path right now.

How many socialist experiments could you mark as success vs failure?

How many more Venezuela's need to happen before we think, "hey maybe we shouldn't give the government more power and control over our lives?".

I'd imagine that a common thread w/ most dictators is that they sell the idea of a socialist model to the people of their country, but they too often actually don't give a 4X about those people. Why wouldn't you sell that idea? Tell the people that they'll all be better off etc etc if they let so-and-so be President etc. There've been more than enough right-wing dictatorships to suggest this isn't an issue caused by any form of actual socialism - Franco, Mussolini, Galtieri et al, Marcos, Bolsonaro, Erdogan(?)...

For the others (that perhaps start out w/ good intentions but fall off the wagon), suspect the power and access to wealth goes to their heads. So, a flaw of humans themselves. Of the political left or right? I don't think it matters.

I would agree, socialism is used gain power and oppress the people it claimed to help. The definition of evil.

Why do so many ppl still believe the lie? It's used as an entry point for evil, why do so many get seduced by it even today? Despite all the countless examples.

So now that we agree that power corrupts, why do left leaning ppl support policies that give the state more power for it to abuse? Wouldn't the logical choice be to limit the power of the government?

-Less gov intervention in the economy
-No speech laws
-Less tax, less spending and wasting of the public's money.
-Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class. Effectively gaming the system.

No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

I'm more of a Roosevelt New Deal guy than an out an out Socialist.....I'm for aspiration with a heart..

But as everyone on here is Center right I just look like one.....

Didn't you say earlier today that you'd vote for Boris Johnson over Labour?

I can't vote for a guy who kicks out decent people and renegades on everything he has ever pledged....Corporate Wh**e is Starmer.

Two Conservative parties...Might as well vote for the real one..

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class aka keep out the black people.

(Premisedata) poll...Biden Approval..

Approve 34%
Disapp...56%

Only one poll.....Significant because Trump's average never dropped below 34%......Could be an outlier but it will cause concern especially if West gains traction with black voters who are 'soft' on Biden at the moment..

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class aka keep out the black people.

I always get confused where I fit into this; the majority of my family came from Ireland. Granted we're all white, sound English and consider ourselves to be as such, do we get to vote?

Soul Requiem wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class aka keep out the black people.

I always get confused where I fit into this; the majority of my family came from Ireland. Granted we're all white, sound English and consider ourselves to be as such, do we get to vote?

Only the men.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class aka keep out the black people.

I always get confused where I fit into this; the majority of my family came from Ireland. Granted we're all white, sound English and consider ourselves to be as such, do we get to vote?

Only the men.

And obviously only the heterosexual men at that.

Soul Requiem wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class aka keep out the black people.

I always get confused where I fit into this; the majority of my family came from Ireland. Granted we're all white, sound English and consider ourselves to be as such, do we get to vote?

My family comes from Ireland....Hardly spoke any English apparently when they arrived in NY.....Passed through the fabled Castle Garden in the latter part of the 19th century.....Came from Cork....

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

I find it interesting that that's what you consider free speech is for. You are clearly projecting.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

I find it interesting that that's what you consider free speech is for. You are clearly projecting.

I put two and two together, it seems to have come to four.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No speech laws aka it's my right to racially abuse people.

I find it interesting that that's what you consider free speech is for. You are clearly projecting.

I put two and two together, it seems to have come to four.

As a free speech absolutist, I will defend your right to racist speech, even when I don't agree with it.

Remember #bekind

Hey everyone, do we REALLY need to have a whole page repasted everytime someone wants to reply to a comment.

Perhaps just select relevant text and quote that.

Pages looks a mess and it's a right pain on a phone scrolling through vast quantities of multiple replies.

Just a thought.

I look forward to major newspapers publishing any false claims about anyone they that they want to , with fabricated and convincing AI generated evidence, without fear of any legal consequences.

Society would be a better place if that sort of thing were allowed on go on all the time.

mountain man wrote:Hey everyone, do we REALLY need to have a whole page repasted everytime someone wants to reply to a comment.

Perhaps just select relevant text and quote that.

Pages looks a mess and it's a right pain on a phone scrolling through vast quantities of multiple replies.

Just a thought.

We don't need to, but free speech, mate!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

I'm more of a Roosevelt New Deal guy than an out an out Socialist.....I'm for aspiration with a heart..

But as everyone on here is Center right I just look like one.....

Didn't you say earlier today that you'd vote for Boris Johnson over Labour?

I can't vote for a guy who kicks out decent people and renegades on everything he has ever pledged....Corporate Wh**e is Starmer.

Two Conservative parties...Might as well vote for the real one..

Didn't Johnson eject any non-Brexiteer from the Tory party and lie about pretty much everything during his time in office? Or am I thinking of a different Johnson?

the-goon2 wrote:I would agree, socialism is used gain power and oppress the people it claimed to help. The definition of evil.

Why do so many ppl still believe the lie? It's used as an entry point for evil, why do so many get seduced by it even today? Despite all the countless examples.

So now that we agree that power corrupts, why do left leaning ppl support policies that give the state more power for it to abuse? Wouldn't the logical choice be to limit the power of the government?

-Less gov intervention in the economy
-No speech laws
-Less tax, less spending and wasting of the public's money.
-Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class. Effectively gaming the system.

Personally, I'm not convinced there's anything amiss with many socialist ideas; we're social beings. It's clearly a balance, but where is the line drawn for the best? I'm not so extreme to think that all 'socialism' is 'evil'. Maybe the human race isn't ready for it?

IMO, it's also clear to me that a free-for-all and individual freedoms overriding social responsibilities isn't the way to go either. Too many individuals are far too greedy and think the hindmost should just die off; we're past that as a species now I would hope.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

mountain man wrote:Hey everyone, do we REALLY need to have a whole page repasted everytime someone wants to reply to a comment.

Perhaps just select relevant text and quote that.

Pages looks a mess and it's a right pain on a phone scrolling through vast quantities of multiple replies.

Just a thought.

We don't need to, but free speech, mate!

So you enjoy wading through piles of replies upon replies?

Hardly an issue of free speech more (I thought) a sensible suggestion but perhaps not...

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:I would agree, socialism is used gain power and oppress the people it claimed to help. The definition of evil.

Why do so many ppl still believe the lie? It's used as an entry point for evil, why do so many get seduced by it even today? Despite all the countless examples.

So now that we agree that power corrupts, why do left leaning ppl support policies that give the state more power for it to abuse? Wouldn't the logical choice be to limit the power of the government?

-Less gov intervention in the economy
-No speech laws
-Less tax, less spending and wasting of the public's money.
-Tighter immigration and more robust citizenship requirements so the native person vote's cannot be undermined by importing a new voter class. Effectively gaming the system.

Personally, I'm not convinced there's anything amiss with many socialist ideas; we're social beings. It's clearly a balance, but where is the line drawn for the best? I'm not so extreme to think that all 'socialism' is 'evil'. Maybe the human race isn't ready for it?

IMO, it's also clear to me that a free-for-all and individual freedoms overriding social responsibilities isn't the way to go either. Too many individuals are far too greedy and think the hindmost should just die off; we're past that as a species now I would hope.

It is indeed a balance. Very few people want the absence of government, and very few people want a government with total control. It's only about the size. Size matters!

mountain man wrote:...

It was a joke. And I present to you a very small quote.

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Might be worth noting that apart from Truss, I doubt anyone on here would advocate for the old-skool definition of socialism. Nor do the Labour Party or the Democrat Party. There may be a few on the radical fringe that do, but there are also radical right-wing white supremacists.
Socialism means many things to many people these days.

I'm more of a Roosevelt New Deal guy than an out an out Socialist.....I'm for aspiration with a heart..

But as everyone on here is Center right I just look like one.....

Didn't you say earlier today that you'd vote for Boris Johnson over Labour?

I can't vote for a guy who kicks out decent people and renegades on everything he has ever pledged....Corporate Wh**e is Starmer.

Two Conservative parties...Might as well vote for the real one..

Didn't Johnson eject any non-Brexiteer from the Tory party and lie about pretty much everything during his time in office? Or am I thinking of a different Johnson?

I don't like Johnson.....Prefer him to the charisma-less...charlatan running Labour..

More ellipses than reason.