We’ve tried nationalism on for size, why not socialism?

The US has always used socialism. Our government and economy has always been a blend of capitalism and socialism.

 

This the first that I hear of it.

 

socialism=communism with enough time

 

This is an excellent post because it illustrates that no monopoly has ever been attained without government assistance. Government is not what prevents monopolies, it is what empowers them.

 

Capitalism and socialism are what we have and there is no room for communism in the mix.

 

Government regulations are introduced when monopolies overstay their welcome, crush competition, and abuse the environment, as happened with the robber barons and others. There is a place for government or capitalism will run amock due to greed.

 

Monopoly prices only occur due to government regulations.

 

If you think that Trump slashing regulations will result in price reductions, think again. Industry will run amock due to greed, which is
why regulations were introduced in the first place.

 

I look forward to your example of a monopoly that raised prices without government support.

 

Do you have a job? In my experience only those still living with their parents or are on welfare want socialism.

 

Only rockefeller came close to having it all and they broke him up. Vanderbilt was never close to having all of the Railroads, or steamship lines Nor did MOrgan gave close to all the banks though better him than Wells Fargo. Rockefeller did have almost 80% of the oil industry but considering he built most of it this shouldn't be a surprise and various anti trust acts broke that venture shortly after it happened. By the way I know of only one other enterrise that was broken up by the Feds and that was MaBell then known as the Seven sisters and that was done by a Republican Reagan to be precise.

 

Incorrect. Monopolies occur because of political favor as the part of your post that I emboldened clearly illustrate. Regulations are enacted after the fact as a dog and pony show for the ignorant masses.

Greed and power is the driving force behind politicians as they alocste political favor to interests such as corporations and unions. No monopoly had ever occurred without government assistance. The robber barrons are a perfect illustration of that. Government reserves only one monopoly for themselves: force.

It's befuddling to me that people still think government works in their best interest.

 

The thread wrongly assumes that socialism and nationalism are somehow opposed or incompatible. In reality, socialism and nationalism are often combined to varying degrees. The Nazis are probably the most infamous example of national socialism, but many other governments share the same fundamental assumptions about the collectivization of society and the redistribution of societal wealth. For example, the US government purports to govern a "nation" while forcefully redistributing a large portion of that nominal entity's wealth. That is national socialism in principle.

 

Such purple prose doesn't make the fact that you are reject reality any less true. Facts don't care about your feelings, A is A. If you refuses to believe A is A then I have nothing further to discuss with you.

We are a Constitutional Republic. It is because of that reason that Trump was elected in the first place, having won the most electoral college votes instead of an outright plurality as would be required in any properly understood Democracy. Trump swore to uphold the Constitution, not the feelings of the people, and if he broke against the Constitution he would be impeached by the legislative branch and lose all of his power of the Presidency because he is an executive officer who's power comes from the Constitution, not the other way around.

Our Republic is still standing, the Constitution still rules, you writing like a bad 19th century poet about the "down trodden" and your own personal feelings don't mean a thing compared to the facts. A is A. We are a Constitutional Republic. Get over it Nancy.

 

I believe it was F.A. Hayek who correctly stated that "nationalism is socialism's little brother". They are both statist ideals, the only difference is the emotional appeal they make to people.

 

Do you 'discuss' with anyone? You think the functions of the electoral process confirm our being a Republic? So Dr. Larry Nassar was acting in his capacity as a doctor when he sexually molested young girls at Michigan State? I mean, just confirm that logic on a consistent example.

Mere functions,do not in of itself prove that something actually is what it is. All it proves is that it's functioning in that way. But that doesn't mean it is that way.

That had to be the dumbest thing I'd heard in a while, but it makes sense from somebody utterly incapable of observing the situation around him. Yes, our functions are operating as originally intended. No, our government however is not operating in the sense of the Constitutional Republic.

From the Conservatives who would argue that the Constitution did not derive the power for social security and medicaid, to the Liberals who would complain about Citizens United. Only an idiot would say we're a Constitutional Republic.

Hell, one can easily observe that they're the same thing: Social Security/Medicaid are ran from the power of individual taxation(and mass government spending). Citizens United comes from shadow corporate money. It's clear that the US is a plutocracy. Look at the average donations to a politician, and see the hundreds of thousands spent on campaigns.

The functions masquerade the truth, and for a while they succeeded. But in 2018, and with the advent of the internet combined with the damage from past mistakes people are waking up to the truth: The Republic is finished(was finished more than 50 years ago), the democracy is a sham that leads to an Plutocracy.

I mean for god sakes, an 'alternative' was thought to be some billionaire(Trump.) The next time you want to complain that I "sound like a poet" it's better to sound like a poet, than to 'bitterly cling' to what once was, but will sadly never be again. Obama was right on that one.

Let me go deeper than him: Even if by some miracle the Republic were restored, the public corruption is such that the plutocracy would easily regain control of the government purses.

 

So the government is running as it is instructed to run in the Constitution, but since you don't like that we aren't actually a Constitutional Republic, even if we are running as a Constitutional Republic, and exist as a Constitutional Republic.

You really don't accept that A is A do you? I haven't seen someone who runs on emotional appeal as you since an old Marxist professor I used to know.

 

You're really having a hard time with this, aren't you? Okay, let me put to you in ways that even you will comprehend it: I hold the 1965 law to be Unconstitutional. There's nothing in the US Constitution that allows for quotas to be placed on the executive branch of the US Government. Yet despite that, the Act of 1965 has still stood the test of time.

If we acted purely as a Constitutional Republic, the Act would've been struck down. Hell, it wouldn't have passed! Need something more recent? The Patriot Act of 9/11 and its known violations of the 4th Amendment. Oh wait, no problems there.

Just because something looks like something, just because something acts within the same capacity with the same methods does not mean its overall intent is the same. Observable to most people on planet earth, but for you it's a challenge.

We can sum it up to say you're color blind in the political world. None of this is emotional appeal. This is you not comprehending that someone can use the fiat device of the government, to achieve different objectives.

This is you not recognizing that our Public, unwittingly or not enabled such a financial transfusion of power that the Framers would've balked in horror at for the very scenario we face today: A public that's virtually ignored by Congress.

 

I think the lack of progress on income inequality is growing support for socialism/communism.

 

Your emojis, purple prose, and complaining about different debates within the policy realms are noted, does not change the fact that we are a constitutional republic.

Did Trump win his constitutional approved political office by the laws as stated in the Constitution? Yes.
Did he swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land? Yes.
Is he forced to exist with then confines of the Constitution places upon his office, or from power granted to him from the legislative branch? Yes.
Can he be removed from office by the act of Impeachment as stated in the US Constitution? Yes.
Could we call upon a convention of states in preparations the alter the Constitution as stated within the Constitution? Yes.
Can the Constitution be amended through the legislative process as well as the convention of states process? Yes.
Could any Supreme Court ruling or legislative act be overruled by an amendment to the Constitution? Yes.

I could continue to go on if you wish, but the reality of the world remains true, that we still live under a Constitutional Republic.

Now you don't like elements of the current order, because they go against a certain political aspect that you hold to be true. Fair enough, but it doesn't change the over all facts of the form of government we have, simply because you like to write like a bad 19th century poet about the oppressed masses and such drivel.

A is A. The US is a Constitutional Republic. Trump can't do whatever he wants, because of that reason, he is no King. Neither can the legislature, or the courts. Power is still divided, the Constitution is still supreme, and amending it today would make that Amendment the law of the land despite any objection from anyone, even elected officials. Why? Because we are a Constitutional Republic, and that is how it is designed.

 

Socialism has been tried alot and the economic results haven't been good:

 

No, it isn't.

 

Nothing like the progressive left constantly making excuses for everybody and making everybody "victims" for their own political gain through class warfare.

 

I mean, I give up with this dude. You can try it if you want, but he apparently believes that just because the government is acting within the constitutional model means that the government itself is operating with the behavior of the Republic.

Just so we can really bring it home: The Nazis originally began consolidating power through emergency acts and decrees that were legal, established law in Germany. For the specific purpose of a dictatorship? No, but that's how they used it.

It's not the device that's important, it is the intent.

 

Being born to impoverished parents is not a life sentence. Many people have overcome childhood poverty to become very successful.

Most of the very wealthy in this country are self made.

All you have is excuses for people.