The GOP Senators are the Cowards of the Country IMO!

It is true that a big part of Socialism is Gov't control some or all of the economy. Neither Trump nor Sanders want Gov't to control all of the economy so I assume you are talking about the Gov't controlling part of the economy.

Your second comment is right out of loopy doopy land. Gov't control over the economy - via taxation for example - has everything to do with roads, military and anything else that costs the Gov't money. It is money that came from -"Gov't control of the Economy" that built our roads and pays for our military.

 

The facts speak for themselves, I KNOW so, it's self evident and not even debatable. Denial of the facts doesn't change the facts.

It's possible they could have done more, that is debatable. However they were blatantly obstructed by the President in gathering additional evidence and witness testimony (one of the articles of impeachment). Regardless, they had more than enough evidence to vote on impeachment. The Senate trial could have and SHOULD HAVE introduced additional evidence and testimony they KNEW was available if they wanted to at any time.

The House Representatives only take an Oath to defend, protect and preserve the Constitution prior to taking office. There is no additional oath in an impeachment process. Only the Senators take an additional oath prior to an impeachment trial and that was clearly violated by the majority.

Already addressed, the Senate failed to conduct a legitimate trial (see first response).

American legal ideology, which is derived from English common law requires that ALL the evidence and testimony available, whether it's incriminating, exculpatory or just appropriate, be presented and reviewed by those conducting and participating in a trial. That is standard due process doctrine. Anything short of that is a violation of due process and corrupts any trial.

 

Not even worthy of comment there isn't ba scholar in the world that would buy that inane argument.

 

You simply do not understand what Socialism is and are projecting. The reality is that no scholar with any brains thinks that taxation is not wealth redistribution.

Sorry dude - but taxation is wealth redistribution - and that is Socialism - by your own definition = "Gov't control over the economy".

 

I understand exactly what socialism is and that's no it. One can have government and not have socialism.

 

I agree.
I've spoken many times on our priorities- because to fix anything, you must be aware of root cause and change it to change the results it produces. A nation can't possibly be more just, more productive, more effective than the people who make it up. Government is the reflection of our own weaknesses, our own greed, our own tolerances.

Of course, this starts with the way we raise and prepare our children, because 20 years later they are the ones determining those same factors. It's hard for weak people to raise strong ones- yet we promote weakness and dependency and frequently punish the strong and productive ones, both by legislation and social standards.

You are correct in saying that we are the cause of this- including poor government, at all levels. Schools and teachers can't fix what has already been put in place by poor parents, the solutions have to start there- and far too few people are willing to address that. You never hear a politician call for people to improve themselves. The last on I can remember was JFK, when he said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you- ask what you can do for your country". The best way to do that is raise strong, healthy and moral kids.

 

Sure you can but, if that Gov't decides to tax people (wealth redistribution) - as most Gov'ts in the world do - including in the USA - that is socialism.

What part of "Wealth Redistribution" = Socialist Policy - can you not get through your head ?

 

Taxes by themselves are not wealth redistribution anymore than buying a good or service from another individual or company is. I pay taxes, the government uses that money to build a road. I benefit both directly and indirectly from that road.

 

Taxes are wealth redistribution - Full Stop. You pay taxes - the Gov't builds a road - for the "collective" benefit.

Just as roads are paid for with taxes - so is healthcare - so is the military.

What is laughable is claiming that taxes are not wealth redistribution. One party is taking your money - and spending it on someone else. Whether or not you agree with what that money gets spent on is irrelevant. That money was collected as a function of wealth redistribution - whether it be a royalty - a "Wealth Tax" - personal and corporate income tax - property tax, sales tax and so on.

 

Correct. A vast amount of it lines the pockets of a select few mostly within the military industrial complex and other preferred entities and individuals. It’s theft plain and simple.

 

Bullshit I benefit from the road both directly And indirectly I get something back for my money. The collective does not exist save as a place holder for people to lazy to think beyond the group.

 

Indeed it is theft ! What is strange is that many do not get that "Gov't Spending" is a function of wealth redistribution = Socialism.

 

We all benefit from roads, military, police and so on - some more than others. That does not change the fact that it is wealth redistribution.

Sometimes you get something back for your money - sometimes you don't - that does not change the fact that your money was taken from you - moved out of your control into the the hands of the Gov't - aka the collective - and that money will be spent on the collective in what ever manner the Gov't wants.

 

Of course we all do. But an unrewarded wealth transfer does not happen. With socialism there are all sorts of unequal returns and for that matter non existent returns for my tax dollars.

 

You are talking gibberish - and not addressing the central premise - which is that taxes are "Wealth Redistribution". We all know the returns are unequal .. we all know that we are rewarded in ways ... that does not change the fact that taxes are "Wealth Redistribution"

What part of this equation is so difficult to understand ?

 

Is buying a hot dog a wealth transfer?

 

Of course it is a wealth transfer - you are giving up some of your wealth for that hot dog. What does your question have to do with the Gov't taking your money and giving it to someone else ?

 

The hot dog maker is exchanging his wealth for yours. Neutral exchange, not a transfer.

 

Perhaps - but, this has nothing to do with taxation being wealth redistribution. The poster was flying down a rabbit hole.

 

If I get something on return as I do with a road or police protection or military protection that's one thing. On the other hand you take money and I get nothing back I've been, in essence, robbed. By the way money isn't wealth. It's a way to measure wealth.

 

Look - prior to moving on to other ideas - such as what you get in return for your money - you first have to understand that whether or not you get something in return - that money is from wealth redistribution.

I do not know why you cannot grant this obvious fact - just say ..OK - got it - and then move on with the next idea.
and I know you understand... Thing is - we can't move on to other ideas - such as the point you have brought up - an interesting one - so I will just ignore your episode of "denial of the obvious" - and address your point.

We don't get to pick and choose where that robbed money goes to - and that we get nothing in return doesn't change the fact that it was robbed.

Say one pay's school tax but has no children - and do not like this because they claim to get nothing in return.

I don't like the level of military spending. You seem to think you get something in return - good for you - I don't. We don't get to choose.

You want to make this new definition. Robbed money in Pile A is Socialism. Robbed money in Pipe B is Capitalism.

What determines what goes into Pile A - is what you don't feel that you get something in return for. Pile B - things you feel you get something in return.

Segway: - My stance has always been to decrease the total Robbery - returning now to your definition of Socialism.

The problem with your definition is that everyone's Piles are different. I claim to get little in return for our Military spend - You stand tall and salute the flag claiming to be a Patriot on this basis .. I say it is very unpatriotic to waste so much money on useless spending.

You claim you don't get anything in return for welfare/food stamps - I laugh loudly in your direction for knowing so little about history such that you don't know what you get in return for not having to live in anarchy - or a military police state mixed with anarchy.

The arguments above are not necessarily yours or mine - and it matters not - because they are someone's argument.

Healthcare - Bernie vs Trump - who is the bigger socialist - 1) based on your definition 2) based on my definition.

Trump in both cases.

 

Now you're claiming that for the first 175 years of we our when history we lived in a police state? I don't know livewhose argument that is but he flunked history. Most of the rest of that is on pretty much the same level of ignorance.

 

No clue what you are talking about - I claimed no such thing. Done.