President Trump Criticizes Socialism in State of the Union

You guy don't understand what you own party stands for, so it's no suprise you never get the other side right. If these thing's are to complicated, you should go try bingo instead.

 

You are hilarious. I'll take fake eyebrows over fake hair, tan and character, every time.

I suppose you are completely oblivious to the fact that when you attempt to make his eyebrows an "issue" it shouts volumes about your intellectual superficiality.

And as for resorting to stealing my lines to express yourself, I'm flattered.

 

You are welcome to it, that you would even bother to traffic in such nonsense shouts volumes about your intellectual superficiality.

 

Nice projection. You are were the one that kneejerked that stupid comment about trudeau's eyebrows. Which is probably the only damn thing you know about Canada.

And judging by your plagiarism of my posts, its either intellectual superficiality or a decided lack of wit.

 

Do you think that Lying Trump will live forever? George Wallace said that segregation would exist forever.

Some people are against socialism because they think that black people will benefit. That is why FDR structured the Social Security program in such a way that it excluded most black people at the time.

 

Your post doesn't change or negate what my post said.

 

Then my question should be simple to answer. Why have wages for the average American stagnated for the past 30 years while income for the wealthy has literally flown thru the sky?

 

Supply and demand in the labor market, and globalization.

 

If you're going to impugn people's intelligence you might want to do it in a literate fashion.

Whether they be Republicans or Independents, all people have to do to get Democrats right is watch the video of them sitting on their Commie butts while President Trump declared we will never be a socialist country. Hopefully, we'll be seeing that in campaign ad all across the country in 2020.

If that doesn't work they can listen to all the Dims' socialist policy proposals, like the $32 trillion government-run HC plan or taking the bread off of working Americans' tables and giving it to deadbeats who are unwilling to work or a Big Government Green $teal that will turn our country into Venezuela because we're all going to die in 12 years. No doubt, there will be plenty of good ol' capitalism bashing to go along with it. Maybe the Dims will even summon the OccuTards into the streets....

 

The "dummy" is already in the White House.
Sorry, this post got mixed with another & makes no sense.

 

Pretty hilarious...

 

He's so dumb that democrats are practically guaranteeing his reelection.

 

That's hilarious. Did you come up with that yourself or did Howard Zinn come up with it for you?

Excuse me while I whip this Ockham's Razor out: The Founders called this country the United States because that's exactly what it is - a bunch of states united as one country with a common Constitution and a common Federal government.

LOL - Yes, let's examine what's within a name, shall we?

Socialism
so·cial·ism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]
NOUN

1. 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.
   synonyms:
   leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism · communism· Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · progressivism ·
   [more]
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms:
     leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism ·communism · Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · progressivism ·
     [more]
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Communism
com·mu·nism
[ˈkämyəˌnizəm]
NOUN

1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.See also Marxism.
   synonyms:
   collectivism · state ownership · socialism · radical socialism · Sovietism · Bolshevism · Marxism ·neo-Marxism · Leninism · Marxism–Leninism · Trotskyism · Maoism

We all know what socialism and communism is, just as most of us know the difference between Marxism, Maoism and National Socialism, even though they share the same socialist roots. Despite your futile and amusing attempts to convince us that socialism and communism have about as much in common with each other as socialism has in common with Austrian School libertarianism, we know that's not the case. However, as I pointed out, socialism isn't some sort of monolith - it comes in many degrees and forms - and the term itself is extremely malleable, to say the least. As Wikipedia points out:

So, let's dispense with your red herring and move along...

Truthfully, communism is socialist in nature, as is national socialism. To suggest that socialism and socialist governments are incapable of tyranny is ludicrous. There are numerous examples of tyrannical socialist governments throughout history and it comes as no surprise that a system that needs an all-powerful central government to impose its program on people and has often deprived them of their fundamental rights, most notably their right to private property and other economic rights that are inseparable from individual freedom, is intrinsically authoritarian and frequently results in the worst and most extreme forms of oppression. As has been said, within the seed of socialism lies the germ of authoritarianism.

To belabor my point about the many different degrees and forms of socialism, I would agree that there is a difference between the socialist variants that were practiced in the USSR, Maoist China and "Bolivarian" Venezuela are different than the democratic socialist variants that were practiced in Clement Attlee's Britain, post-colonial India and in the hybrid economies of the West, including the United States, where socialist welfare policies exist alongside free market capitalism. Again, we already know this.

I'm right. For example, in democratic socialist France, historian Bernard Lewis was keelhauled before a judge and fined because he disputed the assertion that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians in the early 20th Century. There have been numerous cases such as this, most recently the one involving an Austrian woman who was fined for calling the the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, a pedophile, even though Islam's scriptural texts state that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with his prepubescent wife Aisha. Here in America, where free speech is not restricted under European (and Canadian) "hate speech" laws, people are free to speak and write these things. Of course, Europe has a long sordid history involving the suppression of free speech...

It's government-run healthcare that many Americans consider a threat - to our healthcare, livelihoods, privacy, individual freedom and our nation and its economy, as well - and it's not just conservatives and libertarians who think that. Furthermore, we don't think that we need to destroy our existing HC system or resort to coercive measures such as forcing people to purchase HI or pay the government a fine, to improve it and deal with issues such as cost, efficiency, preexisting conditions, portability, etc.. Unfortunately, government-run HC is one of the Left's holy grails, even though we have the failed example of the VA healthcare system to warn us that Washington is incapable of handling our healthcare in a cost-effective and efficient manner. We've also seen several states look into enacting "single-payer" or "Medicare for All" programs and they've found that they were far too expensive and didn't do enough, if anything, to improve the problems with the existing system.

There's also one more important matter to consider here - the government cannot solve all our problems and it was never intended to solve all our problems, despite the Left's vain hopes and plans that it can be everything for everybody. It can't, and life isn't always "fair" - bad things happen to good people all the time, and we can't legislate that away. If we could we would outlaw Death and misfortune and live happily ever after forever. That's a utopian fantasy, and it's never going to happen.

It might be worth learning that many of the Founding Fathers did live up to the ideals that I espouse and are contained in our Founding documents, but the Nihilists who masquerade as "progressives" in this country either don't know that or refuse to acknowledge it. For example, in 1761, the Father of the Fourth Amendment, James Otis, Jr., asserted that Blacks possessed the same natural rights as Whites in his arguments against general writs of assistance in Paxton's Case. His colleague, Samuel Adams, the indispensable man in America's quest for independence and arguably the chief ideologue of the Revolution, was vehemently opposed to slavery. There were many other great and virtuous men and women just like them, but all people like you can talk about are the "slave owners who regarded blacks as sub-human, allowed them no human rights, raped their women, and sold their children to other slave owners at will", etc. Thanks to their efforts and sacrifices, we have been handed this great nation and all the freedoms that come with it, and to protect those freedoms against the people who would take them from us, they enacted the Constitution that Leftists talk down and despise because if frustrates their will to power and control. You must be proud to know that they had people like you in mind when they wrote it.

As for "progressives", they are nothing of the sort. They are statist reactionaries who have broken from the evolution of Western Liberalism and the revolutionary accomplishments of our Forefathers and Mothers in America in order to reinstitute the absolutist, patriarchal and hierarchal systems of the past (all in the name of "altruism", of course). Far from being the champions of individual freedom they are its sworn and eternal enemies.

 

Blah Blah blah blah, stupid ****ed up, emotionally charged posts don't bother me a bit coming from the side that was PROUD to engage in a make make him fail campaign for 8 years. The commie right collectively worked against American intrest and are now show more love for Russia than America. You mean nothing to me.

 

Americans do not want two traits in a presidential candidate:
i) They don't want someone over 75.
ii) They don't want a Socialost.

Trump Signals a Great Debate on Socialism.

 

Americans are victims of their own propaganda. They were told during the Cold War that Socialism was a step toward, or synonymous with, communism. But that's not true. Communist states have almost always referred to themselves as "socialist" because they knew socialism was more humane and supportive of human rights. Being identified as "socialist" made communism more acceptable to the public. But our Cold War propagandists blurred the differences between socialism & communism too. And our propaganda was equally destructive. Today, most Americans can't tell the difference between socialism & communism, and constantly get the two confused, as if they were the same thing. They aren't. Communism does NOT allow private enterprise or personal or corporate businesses to exist. Communist governments control everything, and are totalitarian--all of them. But socialism is far different. First, modern socialist countries not only allow private enterprise & corporate business, but encourage them & work with them continuously. Modern socialist countries are even more democratic than America. These American fears of modern socialism--especially democratic socialism--are groundless. Many democratic socialist ideas would make America a much more fair, democratic & humane country. It would also improve education and advance our standing in world leadership, if we were to adopt some socialist ideas.

 

The author of our pledge of allegiance Francis Julius Bellamy was a lifelong Democratic Socialist.

 

The US has adopted many socialist ideas.

Health care.
Education.
Welfare.

As long as we ignore results, they are working just fine!

 

Every program, regardless of intent, or who controls it, can have problems. Every program, regardless of intent, or who controls it, can be improved.

 

We aren't trading in our Constitutional rights for a Socialistic Oligarchy.

SAME AS IT EVER WAS: New Socialists: Entitled, Ignorant, Virtue-Signaling Turds Make Destruction En Vogue.

 

Democratic socialism would work just fine within the existing parameters of the U.S. Constitution, so there's no need to feel one has to "give up" their Constitutional protections. I'm not talking a "Socialist Oligarchy" here. We're currently living under an economic aristocracy oligarchy in the U.S. today, based on the discrepancy between what 98% of Americans earn annually compared to the income of that wealthiest 2% who own & control everything--including our Constitutional political system. One oligarchy is as bad as another. They all promote the few against the many. Ours is no different. A true Democratic Socialist America would eliminate that oligarchy & focus on the inclusion of all Americans as shareholders & recipients of all the wealth our nation produces. Your post is unnecessarily harsh & based on fears I feel are groundless.

 

We aren't trading in our Constitutional rights for a Socialistic Oligarchy.

SAME AS IT EVER WAS: New Socialists: Entitled, Ignorant, Virtue-Signaling Turds Make Destruction En Vogue.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with solutions that do not erode our individual rights against encroachment by government.

No we aren't. I have no problem with someone making a lot of money as the result of voluntary transactions, and if I do, I'll do business with someone else. That is why we need to keep monopolies broken up and regulations pruned so that new startups that are willing to better meet our needs always have the ability to form.

Dead simple question for you: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE US ECONOMY?

blah blah blah horseshit. Enough with all the jealousy and envy.

We do need a few constitutional amendments and thanks to article 5 a majority of the States have the power to draft constitutional amendments, which take force on the approval of 3/4ths of the State Legislatures.

One based on voluntary financial transactions is completely different than one based on state power with the State's ability take freedom and strip assets. Further, our nation was formed to secure INDIVIDUAL rights, and that's against encroachment by either a majority or a minority.

That is the State in control of all the means of production and requires the surrender of private property rights, exactly what you said was NOT necessary for your utopian vision.

You just grounded it. Here's a shortcut: Utopians are thieves and murderers. Never forget that.

 

1. I agree.
2. Denial doesn't help. In America that richest 2% of our population owns & controls everything--including our politics. Our President is a billionaire. Almost 100% of all members of Congress are millionaires. Our Supreme Court Justices are wealthy. That means our government & all its lawmaking members are generally working for the benefit of the social & economic class they are members of. That implies that the richest 2% are in control of most of our government's functions & lawmaking processes.
3. I'm neither jealous or envious of the success or wealth of others. I am happy for their success. But I'm concerned about the shrinking percentage of Americans who actually benefit from the growing wealth of our nation. I'm concerned about what they might eventually do, once they realize their own powerless & challenging situation. I don't want a civil rebellion in this country. But I also don't want the excessive portions of our citizens being left out to continue. That's why I'm a Democratic Socialist Democrat. I want to protect our Constitutional rights, plus share the benefits of our nation's wealth more fairly.
4. I totally agree with your first sentence here. That's exactly why I support blending American capitalism with democratic socialism, to protect our individual liberties while spreading the wealth to more beneficiaries. On your 2nd sentence. . .I have learned that our founding fathers were more concerned with preserving States' Rights than securing individual rights under our Constitution. That's what the Electoral College was designed for. Actually, Democratic socialist countries in W Europe have granted & guaranteed their citizens more individual rights than our Constitution has here. Americans have been propagandized to believe otherwise.
5. Exactly the opposite of what you post. Democratic Socialism itself works with companies & corporations, encouraging their success, but more of the final profits are directed into social programs that serve the nation's entire population--like universal healthcare, guaranteed housing, free higher education, etc. America needs that. Democratic Socialist countries DO NOT govern, manage, or control any businesses themselves. You're wrong on this point.
6. I'm no Utopian, and I agree with your point. I'm a fair-minded, compassionate individual who enjoys & wants protection for our civil & individual liberties, but who feels there's too much wealth & power in the hands of too few in America, and wants more Americans to enjoy the benefits of America's wealth & opportunities.

 

Man have you got it all wrong but it is entertaining watching a frog squirm out of a snakes mouth..