The complete Sovietization of the Democrat party

1) They will control whoever serves their needs most, at any given moment in time. Since the Right is still representative of 20thC capitalism (the empowerment of the common man via enterprise and property), they add less value. The Progressive Left, however does.

2) No, roads etc are not even remotely 'economically socialist'. They are quite literally, the luxuries of capitalism. Just as 'making things cheaper' via capitalist surplus, is the very antithesis of socialism. You cannot provide 'socialist programs' unless you're very very rich. Again, these are the benefits of robust capitalism. There is zero socialism involved .. just as there will be zero socialism involved when we're all life-renters paying through the nose 24/7 to survive.

3) No, they don't. They want to see the common man empowered to self-reliance via property and enterprise. A philosophy considered subversive in 21stC. You think the elites want subversion of their serfs?

4) Of course, but DEGREE is what matters. A clear view can be taken by simply asking which side stands for empowerment of the small man, and which stands for his disempowerment?

 

There are a few ultra hard left intellectuals that accept your view as well as libertarians in the center and right. I'm a little more pragmatic. When someone goes and joins an indisputable terrorist organization, goes abroad, goes through their training camps, engages in acts of terrorism against the united states, he or she is no longer a human being worthy of the bill of rights. I wouldn't hold that view to anyone doing it in the homeland, they are just criminals. But, going abroad, wearing their uniform, pledging allegiance to the enemy, etc? People like that endanger thousands of lives, and America just doesn't have the time to grant habeas corpus, rights, etc, to such persons. I reject Noam Chomsky on this issue, and side with Obama.

A hard core ultra left intellectual or libertarian would take your view, but a moderate left to right individual would say, 'there are limits' .

There are limits, and that is that. There is no right answer to this, there is only mine, and yours. I reject, therefore, your premise. I am not even convinced the founding fathers would take your view.

I believe I was reading the copy that stated there is no evidence for that contention.

The IRS did, good for them, but your point was that "Obama weaponized the IRS against conservatives', and i saw no evidence for that.

Which democrats would those be? Comey -- Republican. McCabe -- Republican, Mueller - Republican, Rosenstein - Republican,

Moreover, DNC/Clinton hired Fusion GPS, an american firm. They had no coordination with Steele, nor contact. The CEO of Fusion GPS, Simpson, who hired Steele, testifying before congress stated that he was hired by a lawfirm, and didn't know (for some time) that the law firm represented Clinton.

So, get your facts straight before your hurl arrows.

Given your willingness to twist the facts, traffic in right wing talking points devoid of reality, the odds are that your above
statement is equally disengenuous, which it is, of course. You are drawing conclusions long before the facts are known, which is inconsistent
with the standard you granted to a terrorist operating in a terrorist riddled land. Tsk Tsk.

You picked the side who elected a man who attempted to subvert democracy and inspired his minions to attack the capitol.

 

It’s not all about what he may or may not have done. The fact is the government said he done those things and obviously did not have enough evidence against him to bring the case to court or to even make an argument before hand. If all it takes is the government saying you were a terrorist then what’s to stop them doing that with anyone? Wether you choose to acknowledge this as a violation morals is not the fact of the matter. He did in fact violate the constitution and the rights of an American that literally cost the life of a citizen by his own government.


Secondly I appreciate your answer rather than a smug blow off like so many others. Mind you that Obama also caused the death of a border patrol agent with his gun smuggling schemes. I know this sounds like a Tis for tat argument and it kind of is. It shows that there have been other things in history that did not cause FBI raids that literally costs lives. None of which was investigated and in my opinion should have been. That’s why this is so unprecedented. This is in fact an attack on him because of his politics not because of his so called crimes. This is a page straight out of Russian politics.

 

This stuff is sicko slanderous trash.

 

You're promoting trash and lies.

 

I notice you have Rubio spouting off. Trump mocked him, only to have Rubio kiss Trump's ring. Same with Lying Ted.

 

Do you ever consult sources not pumping out rightwing propaganda?

 

Do you and your buddies want to try discrediting legitimate articles without using left wing propaganda.

 

This is nonsense, especially about a "massive underclass." The stuff coming from political parties is the product of competition in the party, not some elite.

Public schools are collectivist production—IOW, socialism. Roads are sometimes constructed by a government agency and that's socialism. Are they financed by the fruits of a capitalist economy? Of course.

Your case for your position is what?

No, the intention of the "haves" is to have more.

We've had forty years of the system working against average folks.



You boy Trump didn't help average folks.

———————————————

"You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" — Donald Trump, September 2016.

 

Care to post your source for this link and what standards they went on?

 

My buddies? Who would that be? I'm not a leftwinger.

———————————————

"You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" — Donald Trump, September 2016.

 

TRUMP 2024, DESANTIS 2028/32: If Merrick Garland doesn’t give a solid, fast reason for raiding Trump’s home, he’s probably just re-elected him.

"President Donald Trump’s been utterly right these last six years about the “witch hunt” that was the Russiagate investigation: It’s now plain that the Justice Department turned Clinton campaign-commissioned disinformation into a probe that kneecapped his presidency."

"Attorney General Merrick Garland has a clear duty to address the nation and explain Monday’s unprecedented FBI raid on a former president’s home. Hiding behind the “need to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation” will fuel over-the-top speculation on all sides. Transparency can at least ground the debate in reality."

While the pretext they used was documents the "raid was really a hunt for anything that might incriminate him regarding Jan. 6."

​

"Garland sicced the Bureau on parents who speak out at school-board meetings, pretending all political violence comes from the right (when the left rioted in 2020 all across America) and is slow-walking the Hunter Biden investigation."

"Garland needs to address that elephant in the room, and explain what in hell he’s doing. What were they hoping to find as they rifled through his private residence for more than nine hours?"

"If the raid was merely to find documents Trump took from the White House then it’s all too likely to help Trump win in 2024."

'Unless and until Garland goes for full transparency, telling us all exactly what he’s investigating, we have to assume he’s simply taking a huge roll of the dice — hoping to find a Trump-slaying mother lode of evidence at the great risk of turning the ex-prez into a martyr and the next president."

Bursting with corruption,
Spiraling desperation,
Heavily armed raids on political opponents.

 

Your post show you are definitely a leftwinger... spin away my liberal friend...

 

The guy you support is a fraud. He did nothing to fix this...



I made $3.05/hour as a unionized grocery store clerk (time-and-a-half overtime, double-time on Sundays and holidays) in 1964. Today, that would be ...


https://www.bls.gov/

Clerks make half that now.

I support school and medical vouchers. I want to do something serious about illegal immigration. I want the Keystone pipeline to go ahead. Not a liberal.

 

Just before the ill-fated heavily armed raid: The cordial exchanges that preceded the Mar-a-Lago raid.

Trump stopped by that meeting briefly to greet the investigators.

"Aides to Mr. Trump have said they had been cooperating with the department to get the matter settled. The former president even popped into the June 3 meeting at Mar-a-Lago, shaking hands. “I appreciate the job you’re doing,” he said, according to a person familiar with the exchange. “Anything you need, let us know.”'

"Five days later, Trump attorney Evan Corcoran received an email from Mr. Bratt, the chief of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence and export control section, who oversees investigations involving classified information."

“We ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice.”

"Mr. Corcoran wrote back, “Jay, thank you. I write to acknowledge receipt of this letter. With best regards, Evan.” By the next day a larger lock was placed on the door…"

"On June 22, the Trump Organization, the name for Mr. Trump’s family business, received a subpoena for surveillance footage from cameras at Mar-a-Lago. That footage was turned over."

And things went from there to a heavily armed raid and a safe-cracker as the bumbling FBI/DOJ tries to interfere in the 2024 election.

Obviously this wasn't just "about retrieving some documents the investigators had already seen during a visit months earlier."

And with Garland running from it like a scared deer, obviously whatever smoking gun they thought they would turn up by tossing the house, cracking the safe and going through Melania's clothing, came up empty.

What a bunch of idiots.

 

That they are dubious to you and yours is proof positive as to how solid the sources actually are. That you complain about such sources is only incentive to thread even more from such sources because you did so that I can show how much I respect your opinion on the matter

 

Mommy, he did it first and more often……

 

Nope. It’s the truth and beautifully stated.

 

Nope! It is 100% the truth and it’s beautifully stated

 

Good example of hyper partisanship.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

I was referring to your comments with that quote. You’re reduced to claiming that I’m a worse version of yourself because I’m coming from the opposition POV. I proved nothing for you.

 

There is a section on the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit called the 'slippery slope logical fallacy'.

You just committed it. Might want to bone up on that kit. Lot's a good stuff to use when you debate folks, it will raise the caliber of your arguments.

The art of distinguishing between a valid slippery slope argument and one that is a logical fallacy has to do with one's ability to discern, and there, either you are so capable, or you are not. But, with some study, one can learn it. This hold's true with other logical fallacies, as well.

Like I said, I've studied this and find the WH memo acceptable.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-drone-memo-awlaki-20140623-story.html

He is in a foreign country, leading Al - Qaeda in terrorists acts against Americans. The CIA tells us this.

With a guy like that, say we took him back to the states and gave him a trial, and with a great ACLU lawyer, say he gets away with it. say during voir dire, the defendants' lawyer gets a Yemeni American sympathizer, who cleverly hides is real feelings, and they get a hung jury.

Can the US afford to have a guy like that go back to Al Qaeda and kill more Americans? This is no average criminal.

At some point, we either trust our institutions, such as the CIA, or we have chaos. There are limits.

If we can't trust our institutions, even knowing that they can get it wrong sometimes, then we are nihilists, and I don't see anything positive going down that road, and your slippery soap argument doesn't wash, either. And don't interpret this to mean I don't believe in challenging authority, I sure as hell do, and we need our whistleblowers, but this isn't that.

Hell, if this were a constitutional argument, then you are accusing the military of following an illegal order. Apparently they didn't believe it was illegal.

I will always respond to a thought out argument, even if I disagree with it.

But, I don't buy your argument. However, in my view, there is no right or wrong side to this, you just pick one that appeals to your sensibilities.

 

Umm nope.

 

You have no idea what "Sovietization" is, which is understood, not everyone need to read Russian history, but you also don't understand what democracy is - and if you live in a democratic country is a proof that our education is not the best.
In democratic country every party has a right to try to destroy opposition IN A LEGAL WAY. This is what Republicans did to President Clinton and to President Obama and this is what Democrats try to do to President Trump. The only recent case of 'sovietization' was Jan 6, and it was not done by Democrats.