The Gov won't save our nation? The Gov is going to bail out FLorida

You likened disaster relief to socialism. Merging these two topics makes my post on topic. There is a difference between helping those in need and creating dependency.

 

it is the right that is killing capitalism. Certainly you have surmised that by now. It is intentional and obvious.

 

I can't believe that there are people who actually believe the Post Office is a private business. But it's worse than that. Even after it has been explained to them that this is idiotic... they double down! The post-truth era has built an impermeability to reality in a part of the population that is astounding.

 

If you mean that he carries out his crimes, lies and corruption publicly... yeah... I'll give him that. I wouldn't characterize it as "courage". Just plain stupidity would be more appropriate.

My apologies to Christians and Buddhists for comparing them to Trump. Jim Jones would have been a better depiction.

 

the character of Americans not doing everything they can for their health which you incessantly complain about and conflate with health care policy IS a separate subject, having NOTHING to do with 'socialism'.

YOur incessant pseudo debate trick is to say, well, since Americans do not do everything they can to take care of themselves, we shouldn't provide accessible and affordable health care to them.

That's your logic, and it was as false as the first time you injected it into the debate, as it always was false.

It's a separate subject. There is no problem. We tackled smoking in America, and we can do better regarding Americans taking care of themselves, and we can do this right along with providing affordable health care.

do you not understand this? So stop doing it.

 

You posted A definition of socialism. A dictionary definition. Dictionary definitions are not intended to settle a political debate.

That's a logical fallacy known as "Argumentum ad Dictionarium"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

In any case, I'm not talking about socialism. I'm talking about socialist policies.

 

I'm not interested in defining socialism. Because my point is not about socialism. It's about socialist policies.

 

Weren't you the poster who was demanding "keep your government hands off my Post Office" (something to that effect)? If makes sense that you would be the one who thinks that the federal minimum wage is not "very little".

Lucky for you, it's off-topic.

 

Again, maybe you can help me out here. I am not a great fan of DT either but why have so many people reacted to him like he is the second coming of Hitler? I don't get it [other than the fact that he wanted to expose the incredible corruption pervasive in this system]. What else is there? Seriously.

 

No doubt But now you know how we feel when people actually think otherwise.

Good God man
How is the U.S. Postal Service governed and funded? (brookings.edu)

 

Since you pose a serious question, I hope the mods will be lenient if I provide a serious answer. Many posters have explained why what Trump has built is nothing short of a cult. There are books on the topic... SERIOUS books... And the examples are plentiful.

I am not claiming (because it would be against forum rules) that Trump followers here are cult followers. There have been many well-reasoned posts based on the books, cult-expert analysis and examples. Hoping I could refer you to one of them, I looked for threads with the word "cult" in the title, and it looks like they were all removed. So I should not expand too much on the topic as I might infringe forum rules. Just know that this is not hyperbole or some sort of "hate" for a politician. It is a well documented fact that Trump has taken the characteristics typically attributed by experts on the subject to a "cult".

 

I have NO idea how you feel when you are confronted with reality and choose to ignore it anyway.

But, then again, I DON'T want to know.

 

And yet I post links to refute your claim and prove my point

 

Using standard definitions is NOT Argumentum ad Dictionarium. Using alternate or vague definitions, or inventing your own IS Argumentum ad Dictionarium.

 

You mean like this...

"The Congress shall have Power... To establish Post Offices and post Roads"
and
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” [for executing this task.]
United States Constitution, Art. I, § 8,
​

I'll be thinking of you whenever I see that "Keep government hands off of my Post Office!" sign.

 

1- If you are discussing "socialism" in a Political Forum (see the name on the URL), even MENTIONING a dictionary definition is exactly what Argumentum ad Dictionarium is. Unless you make VERY clear that you are using it in a limited fashion. And not as THE definition (which is what you claimed)

2- I am not discussing socialism. I am discussing socialist policies. I would have somewhat understood that you were confused by the fact that my posts says "Socialism is: ....". But, once I made it clear that this was just an expression, and not intended to define what a Socialist type of government is (which should have been obvious to anybody who is not here grasping at straws and splitting hairs out of lack of arguments.), that's where your end of the discussion should shifted, if your intention was to make a comment about my post.

3- Now... the list I gave ARE socialist policies. They are socialist policies because they are intended to benefit society (thus the term social-ist) Do you or do you not have anything to say about that post? I guess you made it clear already that you don't, so... thanks for playing.

 

You are incorrect. I never made such an argument. I would fully support measures to improve public health and quality of life. What you call "affordable health care" is great for big business and politicians, but bad for public health.

Lets take a look at non-partisan facts. "Health care" costs are going up. Public health and lifespan are declining.

Odd that you bring up tobacco considering the same companies that profited from addiction and illness are still doing the same thing and are rewarded with tax dollars for doing it.

Its not a debate trick; results speak for themselves.

Disaster relief is one of the few issues both sides agree on.

 

OK, so it has been postulated that the only way people would be able to follow some of Trumps policies is that they would have to under some sort of "spell," in other words, people could not legitimately believe in the policies based on their merit? Is that what you are saying? If so, could you give me an example or two? Thanks.

 

So, you are saying dictionaries agree with my explanation, and therefore it cannot be correct, but your personal take is correct because it cannot be found anywhere else. Hmm........

Are you arguing socialist policies do not promote socialism? If not, then what do they promote?

You listed social services. Why do you call them "policies".

 

LMAO Golem I ain't falling for that aged old stuff LOLOL

1971 bro, 1971 hahahahahaha

 

It's not too nuanced for anybody seems like you don't view people who voted differently in the past election is deserving of help.

That's not nuance that's really rather petty.

 

nobody should believe in psychics. You can't possibly know what people were thinking when they voted for Trump

This is what we call wishful thinking.

 

You would have to believe this.

Look, I am not a Republican and really do not like either party. I am probably the least political person you might ever meet but do believe this system works best when there is constructive dialog and rational legislative compromise.

If you do not believe that Trump supporters [and I've talked with many] believe in his policies, you are really off the mark. From bringing jobs back to the U.S. [supporting blue collar workers], to securing the southern border, to taking a hard line on China, to taking a less interventionist posture in foreign policy, many millions of people supported him. Are you saying these policies are somehow irrational?

Now you've really got me interested. Do you believe all these people didn't agree with him on these issues and it was something else that attracted them? What could it be? What else could he offer these people who have been sold out by the preceding six administrations [both D & R]?

 

Dude.

Listen. Maybe you would gain a little knowledge.

If the federal government funds a project, it's subject to the Davis Bacon Act prevailing wage law that is NOT minimum wage.

 

What's astounding is how little you know.

How it's funded doesn't alter the fact that.........

The Post Office is established by the US Constitution, and by that measure, is a de jure Branch of the US Government, i,e., it is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government.

There is only one legal carrier of mail, and that is the USPS.

The president appoints the board members.

You may remove your foot from your mouth, now.