AOC is socialist. Is that bad?

Since when?


ref.:
WHAT IS A SOCIALIST?

As in Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics
or
Norway / Sweden style SOCIALIST
or
is National SOCIALIST German Workers Party meant?

 

Scandinavia is politically, culturally, geographically European and Europe lives at 50% of our GDP so it would it be really stupid to copy them.

 

You're ready for what that will mean, I take it. Because you know it's us at the coalface who will be profoundly impacted, dontcha? Those billionaires that Cortex is so determined to make pay for it all, will remain immune to the Second Worldisation which will take place. That's the beauty of being a billionaire, even when you have to cough up 90% of it, you'll still be very very rich and able to buy your comforts.

 

See above quoted upload, I was editing.

We put into our and their defense
what they put into "socialism".
@Medieval Man was right on one page back

 

Let's put it this way: It is compliant with the purpose for which this Country was constituted, as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.of the United States As well as in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, as such, it is objectively great!

 

SocialISM is collective/common purse living. That is not what is happening in Scandinavia. Not at all. They are simply rich enough to afford generous social programs.

 

Yes, it has. I've personally lived it. Many people still do.

 

It's none of those things, when entered into entirely voluntarily. It's actually a very good way to live. For those willing to make the commitment required (pull your weight, no excuses), it pays off big time. The financial and 'human' security of the group/tribe/family whom all have your back, and will band together to ensure you are cared for for life. I don't think anyone can argue that that isn't a worthwhile goal.

 

I think people think they know the difference. The problem is, it's merely platitudinous semantics. There is no difference. Both are shades of the same colour.

 

do you agree it would be stupid to copy Europe when they live at 50% of our GDP??

 

There's more of a cost to those social programs than just just a 1-1 exchange. My wife and I have relatives in Sweden, and I can assure you the reality is quite a bit less than the image.

Sweden, like most European countries is living off the steam of the economy and freedom that used to be. There are no startups, there is very little opportunity for the lower classes, social unrest is very high.

My sister-in-law is afraid to go out at night, her husband works only sporadically, and they cant afford to buy common household goods and clothes - we ship them goods twice per year.

But hey, while all that is going on - he did recently have a kidney transplant "free of charge".

"Free" is a less than a zero-sum game.

 

yes our Constitution was designed to make all form of liberalism illegal!!

 

US wanting to copy Sweden would be like Sweden saying they wanted to copy UES in Manhatten

 

I know little of your Constitution, sorry.

 

it limits central govt to only a few enumerated powers and this limited power is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights

 

Except it never works - does it??

And what about the millions upon millions of people who don't want to enter into it "voluntarily"??

People from your side of the argument must resort to force, do you not?? And therein lies the rub - government, at its basest, is force.

It would seem you've missed those lessons from history.

 

obviously our Founder came here to be free, not to be secure. Now you know why USA is greatest country in human history by far. Do you understand?

 

Don't know enough to reply. Down to checking numbers.
Don't feel ignored.


Without further discussion, so no reply to quote may be the case
I do believe their are elements of Scandinavian style socialism
worth copying.

I agree with @Medieval Man that they can afford it because
we pay their defense beyond lame, token forces on their part.




Oh and I favor a drift back to the Eisenhower Tax Code!
A good Republican, Tax Code.
How we got Freeways and not Tollways

 

As per much of the West, things were outstandingly good at the end of the 20thC. Things were finally looking good across the key areas of equal rights, good social programs, universal free education, etc etc. All the materials needed to make a success of life. But in that achievement lay the redundance of the very politics which pushed for such things. But instead turning their energies instead to pragmatics (feed the starving) and bi-partisan cooperation, they doubled down on the old battles. Rendering any such 'battle' a vain triviality (given people are still starving to death), and creating massive division.

There is only so far you push human nature, and the very last people who should be pushing it are those living in the Ivory Towers of the ultra safe, ultra well-fed, First World.

 

I don't recognise America as the 'greatest country in human history so far', so no. I can think of quite a few better candidates. Japan and New Zealand, for example.

 

No idea what that reply is supposed to mean.

You wanna save the world??

Be my guest; but, you have no right to think that you, your ilk, or the power of government wielded by your kind should have power to compel me to provide support, moral or material, to your cause(s).

Government is a terrible thing, a dangerous thing; but, as Thomas Jefferson said, it is a necessary evil.

You empower government at your own peril - in the end, as history shows repeatedly, you will find yourself engulfed in war, theft by government, tyranny, and democide.

 

Clearly, given your response.

 

USA created Japan after ww2 they are a tiny tiny player to say they are superior when we defend them is beyond insane

 

yes our founders knew that in the 18th century and that was without seeing the great 20century liberals HItler Stalin and Mao. We have seem them a yet some still liberal

 

The bottom line is - you have no right to FORCE me or anyone else to participate in your altruistic schemes.

Especially considering that your altruism is carried out with other peoples money.

Don't know how you can rationalize any way around the fact that you want to use the power of government to force people to do your will.

How does that make you any different than a nazi or a communist??