(02-06-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But great hill to die on, that Donald Trump doesn’t tel lies.

Nice straw man there, Lad. has anybody said he doesn't tell lies? OTOH, we have lots of people saying he always lies, including you when you said the last two statements were true. Never and always. Really good way to frame a debate. All politicians lie. Always have, always will. In fact, all humans lie. Including you and me. Including Obama and every Clinton on the planet. Including George Washington and...

If he lies all the time why does the left have to keep going back to the inauguration?

Plus, among Hirono's coments I quoted, and that you said were true, was that Trump is an avowed sexual predator. What does that mean? You should know, since you said it was true. A predator like Kavanaugh, or a predator like Bill Clinton? What does avowed mean? Did he take an oath to hold true to the principles of sexual predatorism? Sounds like Hirono is engaging in exaggeration and innuendo - things that would be called lies if Trump did them.

I have to say, i expected a more dispassionate response from you, rather than the blanket of talking points and the blind defense of the Democrats.

I think the ladies of the Resistance will continue to oppose all things Trump. If he likes rain, they will vote for drought. It's why they were elected. Why did they remain seated and not applaud when he talked about fighting human trafficking? Is it that they like human trafficking if he is against it?

I didn't watch the speech. I hate speeches. But I did, and will continue to, get commentary on the speech from multiple sources. Not just PBS.

That isn't a strawman. Owl#'s said this:

Quote:I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence.

How does that not state that Trump doesn't lie? Lying is in quotes. Owl#s says they aren't lies, but exaggerations.

You're the one who said we said Trump doesn't lie. Your words.

All politicians lie, all exaggerate, all twist the facts. Example; Warren.

(02-06-2019 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  here is the statement from the front runner for the Democratic nomination:

Harris

This is splitting hairs, but Harris did not support abolishing private insurance, but said they would not be involved with Medicare for All (the implication being that they would not have any business, and thus cease to exist).

Quote:When pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper if that means eliminating private insurance, the senator answered affirmatively, saying she would be OK with cutting insurers out of the mix. She also accused them of thinking only of their bottom lines and of burdening Americans with paperwork and approval processes.

I'm not sure what she meant. "Cutting insurers out" sounds like something between "My plan would legally prohibit private insurance" and "My plan would cause the market for private insurance to disappear." I suspect the vagueness was intentional.

I thought the vagueness was because she hadn't thought it through, and the question caught her by surprise.

JMHO

I’m apt to believe that - which does mean she likely wasn’t pushing a position where she would intentionally use the gov’t to outlaw private insurance.

No, it means she doesn't know what she is talking about. neither know nor care.

(02-06-2019 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is splitting hairs, but Harris did not support abolishing private insurance, but said they would not be involved with Medicare for All (the implication being that they would not have any business, and thus cease to exist).

I'm not sure what she meant. "Cutting insurers out" sounds like something between "My plan would legally prohibit private insurance" and "My plan would cause the market for private insurance to disappear." I suspect the vagueness was intentional.

I thought the vagueness was because she hadn't thought it through, and the question caught her by surprise.

JMHO

I’m apt to believe that - which does mean she likely wasn’t pushing a position where she would intentionally use the gov’t to outlaw private insurance.

No, it means she doesn't know what she is talking about. neither know nor care.

Which means she wasn't explicitly advocating that government abolish healthcare...

Doesn't matter. We're in agreement that she had not thought the proposal through enough to answer that question, which is a pretty basic one when pushing insurance policy. And that's a bit scary for a supposed front runner.

(02-06-2019 01:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm not sure what she meant. "Cutting insurers out" sounds like something between "My plan would legally prohibit private insurance" and "My plan would cause the market for private insurance to disappear." I suspect the vagueness was intentional.

I thought the vagueness was because she hadn't thought it through, and the question caught her by surprise.

JMHO

I’m apt to believe that - which does mean she likely wasn’t pushing a position where she would intentionally use the gov’t to outlaw private insurance.

No, it means she doesn't know what she is talking about. neither know nor care.

Which means she wasn't explicitly advocating that government abolish healthcare...

Doesn't matter. We're in agreement that she had not thought the proposal through enough to answer that question, which is a pretty basic one when pushing insurance policy. And that's a bit scary for a supposed front runner.

It exemplifies to me the liberal tendency to promote feel good projects with little or no research into other effects. Liberals rarely see beyond the first domino. It seems they rarely try to.

(02-06-2019 02:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought the vagueness was because she hadn't thought it through, and the question caught her by surprise.

JMHO

I’m apt to believe that - which does mean she likely wasn’t pushing a position where she would intentionally use the gov’t to outlaw private insurance.

No, it means she doesn't know what she is talking about. neither know nor care.

Which means she wasn't explicitly advocating that government abolish healthcare...

Doesn't matter. We're in agreement that she had not thought the proposal through enough to answer that question, which is a pretty basic one when pushing insurance policy. And that's a bit scary for a supposed front runner.

It exemplifies to me the liberal tendency to promote feel good projects with little or no research into other effects. Liberals rarely see beyond the first domino. It seems they rarely try to.

It's an issue that plagues both parties.

(02-06-2019 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 02:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m apt to believe that - which does mean she likely wasn’t pushing a position where she would intentionally use the gov’t to outlaw private insurance.

No, it means she doesn't know what she is talking about. neither know nor care.

Which means she wasn't explicitly advocating that government abolish healthcare...

Doesn't matter. We're in agreement that she had not thought the proposal through enough to answer that question, which is a pretty basic one when pushing insurance policy. And that's a bit scary for a supposed front runner.

It exemplifies to me the liberal tendency to promote feel good projects with little or no research into other effects. Liberals rarely see beyond the first domino. It seems they rarely try to.

It's an issue that plagues both parties.

Not equally.

(02-06-2019 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 02:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m apt to believe that - which does mean she likely wasn’t pushing a position where she would intentionally use the gov’t to outlaw private insurance.

No, it means she doesn't know what she is talking about. neither know nor care.

Which means she wasn't explicitly advocating that government abolish healthcare...

Doesn't matter. We're in agreement that she had not thought the proposal through enough to answer that question, which is a pretty basic one when pushing insurance policy. And that's a bit scary for a supposed front runner.

It exemplifies to me the liberal tendency to promote feel good projects with little or no research into other effects. Liberals rarely see beyond the first domino. It seems they rarely try to.

It's an issue that plagues both parties.

Not equally.

(02-06-2019 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And funnily your own provided definition of socialism doesnt cover your proffered example of Venezuela.

I thought that Venezuela had nationalized their oil reserves and thus owned the means of production of a national resource?

So your definition is now if they only ntionalize one industry it is a socialist system. Got it. I guess using that interesting definition the city of Austin via Austin Power is socialist in your book..

Your proferred definition said 'owns *the* means of production, not *a* means as production.

So using your apparently perfect definition neither Venezuela nor China are socialist since many forms of private ownership of means exist in esch country.

I find that result stupid as fk. Ergo your definition has flaws.

Clear?

I can demonstrate about a dozen mor examples that indicate an issue with the definition of socialism you put forth. Shall I continue?

(02-06-2019 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought I saw her clap slightly. Now, many Dems didn’t, and it’s because they know Trump wasn’t talking about actual socialism, but instead what him and other conservatives have tried to label as socialism - government programs that provide services (e.g. healthcare, childcare, etc.). It serves no purpose other than to induce the exact type of comment you just made.

Had Obama made a pointed comment about fascism, I doubt conservatives would have clapped, as it would have been viewed as the same eye-roll inducing jab.

So the main point for you is between 'real' socialism and plain jane 'normal' redistributive policies. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Tell me where in this amazing distinction does the line appear for you?

Socialism:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism)

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Tell me how specific policy positions, such as government funded childcare or healthcare are the exact equivalent to the state/public owning the entirety of the means of production.

This is a perfect example of how when everything is socialism, you lose sight on the actual definition of socialism. Venezuela nationalized their oil and gas company - so the government owned the means of production and distribution of goods. I'd draw the line at calling the government "socialist" if began owning and distributing natural resources, or owning complete monopolies on services.

Actually that definition of socialism utterly ignores national socialism.

No state ownership of the means of production there and the roots of that and the hard version of collectivism are readily available historical fact.

Sorry lad. Your definition seems a little short.

From that definition it would be hard pressed to label the current Chinese as socialist which anyone who isnt willingly blind sees is not so.

The archetypal socialist regime has at its core the main principles. of collectivism and redistribution. The core tenets of modern progressivism. I suggest you look at the history of socialist theory.

You do realize I gave you the sources of my definition, right? One of them being merriam-webster...

National socialism = nazism, by the way.

And you're pretty much making my point - that no one clapped at that line because what it was doing was trying to poke liberals by equating them to true socialists, as opposed to people who often advocate for similar policies to those of European countries. I've yet to see a major portion of the Democratic party advocate for Venezuelan style socialism by nationalizing our oil and gas reserves, or Chinese style authoritarian rule (I'm sure there are some out there, but they are certainly not in the majority).

your dance around the concept of 'true socialists' and the explicit Democratic policy of strict command and control over the 20 percent of the economy known as healthcare is truly laughable.

The distinction of 'true' socialists given both the past track record and their wish list is worthy of a soup category chapter in the Goldilocks tale.

Not even to mention the overriding urge and necessity for government control of such items as the loan industry for education.


But please feel frere to squawk that that is nowhere near a socialistic urge there.

(02-06-2019 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  here is the statement from the front runner for the Democratic nomination:

Harris

This is splitting hairs, but Harris did not support abolishing private insurance, but said they would not be involved with Medicare for All (the implication being that they would not have any business, and thus cease to exist).

Quote:When pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper if that means eliminating private insurance, the senator answered affirmatively, saying she would be OK with cutting insurers out of the mix. She also accused them of thinking only of their bottom lines and of burdening Americans with paperwork and approval processes.

I'm not sure what she meant. "Cutting insurers out" sounds like something between "My plan would legally prohibit private insurance" and "My plan would cause the market for private insurance to disappear." I suspect the vagueness was intentional.

I thought the vagueness was because she hadn't thought it through, and the question caught her by surprise.

JMHO

I’m apt to believe that - which does mean she likely wasn’t pushing a position where she would intentionally use the gov’t to outlaw private insurance.

Are you wishing to create another magical distinction here, this one between a legal prohibition and the government acting in. a way that starves out private acts? I sincerely hope not.

(02-06-2019 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wouldn't go as far as many.

I wouldn't either. But there are some, including some prominent ones. Given how inexcusably irresponsible it is to even pretend to endorse actual socialism, that's too many.

(02-06-2019 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do know that positive feelings about socialism are, in general, increasing among American youth.

Alas, "American youth think stupid things" is not news. Fortunately, youth (usually) grows up.

I think it's a bit more than that last line though. I do think there is harm being done by labeling any proposal that increases the role of government as being socialist. It begins to muddy the waters of what socialism actually is, and begins to make people more willing to embrace a political paradigm that does not work.

But American leftists (young or otherwise) who declare support for "socialism" are not doing so chiefly because some of their opponents have labeled safety-net policies as socialist. Rather, they are doing so chiefly because they are willfully ignorant of how execrable socialism is. That's their failing, not their opponents'.

(02-06-2019 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Policies that fall under the realm of Nordic style governance definitely fall closer to socialism than pure, unfettered capitalism, but a strong capitalist system is still needed to lay the foundation for success.

That last clause would indeed be right at home in Scandinavia -- but it would make you a heretic among the left wing in the US.

Agree about some on the left, but we'll disagree about how many would find that heretical. I think the majority just don't view unfettered capitalism as the answer to problems the way the right tends to portray it. Even Adam Smith recognized that government played an integral role in society to a certain point, yet it feels as if the right thinks the invisible hand is the best and ultimate arbiter for all issues facing modern society.

Adams recognized govt as *an* actor. Your addition of 'intregal' is far more of a Kenysian approach.

Hell. Even Mises recognized the government as an actor. Neither. the first or last noted them as integral. That honor really only belongs to Keynes.

My discussion with a young (25) socialist (Sanders supporter) leads me to believe they actually do want socialism in the US. He said nobody needs more than $200K to live happily, and called for the confiscation of all wealth above that to be redistributed to the poor. So I cut his share of my will to $200K.

(02-06-2019 06:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I wouldn't either. But there are some, including some prominent ones. Given how inexcusably irresponsible it is to even pretend to endorse actual socialism, that's too many.


Alas, "American youth think stupid things" is not news. Fortunately, youth (usually) grows up.

I think it's a bit more than that last line though. I do think there is harm being done by labeling any proposal that increases the role of government as being socialist. It begins to muddy the waters of what socialism actually is, and begins to make people more willing to embrace a political paradigm that does not work.

But American leftists (young or otherwise) who declare support for "socialism" are not doing so chiefly because some of their opponents have labeled safety-net policies as socialist. Rather, they are doing so chiefly because they are willfully ignorant of how execrable socialism is. That's their failing, not their opponents'.

(02-06-2019 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Policies that fall under the realm of Nordic style governance definitely fall closer to socialism than pure, unfettered capitalism, but a strong capitalist system is still needed to lay the foundation for success.

That last clause would indeed be right at home in Scandinavia -- but it would make you a heretic among the left wing in the US.

Agree about some on the left, but we'll disagree about how many would find that heretical. I think the majority just don't view unfettered capitalism as the answer to problems the way the right tends to portray it. Even Adam Smith recognized that government played an integral role in society to a certain point, yet it feels as if the right thinks the invisible hand is the best and ultimate arbiter for all issues facing modern society.

Adams recognized govt as *an* actor. Your addition of 'intregal' is far more of a Kenysian approach.

Hell. Even Mises recognized the government as an actor. Neither. the first or last noted them as integral. That honor really only belongs to Keynes.

I can go pull the section of the book on historic economists I read two nights ago discussing Smith’s views on the role government in society and how, based on his feelings, that role appeared to be integral. He very specifically felt that there were roles the government should play (such as enforcing contracts), thus making it integral...

(02-06-2019 06:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My discussion with a young (25) socialist (Sanders supporter) leads me to believe they actually do want socialism in the US. He said nobody needs more than $200K to live happily, and called for the confiscation of all wealth above that to be redistributed to the poor. So I cut his share of my will to $200K.

No doubt there are socialists in the US. There are also nazis that suppprt Trump...

(02-06-2019 07:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think it's a bit more than that last line though. I do think there is harm being done by labeling any proposal that increases the role of government as being socialist. It begins to muddy the waters of what socialism actually is, and begins to make people more willing to embrace a political paradigm that does not work.

But American leftists (young or otherwise) who declare support for "socialism" are not doing so chiefly because some of their opponents have labeled safety-net policies as socialist. Rather, they are doing so chiefly because they are willfully ignorant of how execrable socialism is. That's their failing, not their opponents'.

(02-06-2019 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Policies that fall under the realm of Nordic style governance definitely fall closer to socialism than pure, unfettered capitalism, but a strong capitalist system is still needed to lay the foundation for success.

That last clause would indeed be right at home in Scandinavia -- but it would make you a heretic among the left wing in the US.

Agree about some on the left, but we'll disagree about how many would find that heretical. I think the majority just don't view unfettered capitalism as the answer to problems the way the right tends to portray it. Even Adam Smith recognized that government played an integral role in society to a certain point, yet it feels as if the right thinks the invisible hand is the best and ultimate arbiter for all issues facing modern society.

Adams recognized govt as *an* actor. Your addition of 'intregal' is far more of a Kenysian approach.

Hell. Even Mises recognized the government as an actor. Neither. the first or last noted them as integral. That honor really only belongs to Keynes.

I can go pull the section of the book on historic economists I read two nights ago discussing Smith’s views on the role government in society and how, based on his feelings, that role appeared to be integral. He very specifically felt that there were roles the government should play (such as enforcing contracts), thus making it integral...

I dont think anyone argues that providing the bedrock of a system of law is a huge positive towards economic freedoms.

You would be correct that the government ability to enforce contract is a very powerful role --- in a strictly adjunct means if you note. It actually 'helps' the invisible hand operate efficiently. And contrary to your comment that the right is too fing stupid to see that adjunct functional advantage, I would say that most on the right are absolutely on board with that.

FFS, even the hardest core Chicago school types recognize that adjunct function.

But, the discussion isnt in the context of teh police provisiosn to provide contract relief. The discussion is that of the government's role as an actor, mind you.

But you seemingly either mix and match the role of government now, or simply dont understand the context in which you place Smith's stance -- especially when the discussion was geared towards a comparison with Scandinavia and the role of the government as an actor or an ultimate actor (i.e. Scandinavian welfare-centric socialism).

I mean your discussion of the government as providing the means to obtain contract enforcement (and yes, integral) really doesnt have **** to do with the discussion as the level of the government as an actor, does it?

(02-06-2019 07:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My discussion with a young (25) socialist (Sanders supporter) leads me to believe they actually do want socialism in the US. He said nobody needs more than $200K to live happily, and called for the confiscation of all wealth above that to be redistributed to the poor. So I cut his share of my will to $200K.

No doubt there are socialists in the US. There are also nazis that suppprt Trump...

No doubt either that the vast, avst majority of 'progressives' can readily be classified as 'collectivists' and/or 'redistributionists'?

I would say, as a proportion, a fkload more Democrats (probably much more than a majority) hold those views than Nazis who support Trump. But you knew that....

But cute attempt at a retort.

(02-06-2019 07:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My discussion with a young (25) socialist (Sanders supporter) leads me to believe they actually do want socialism in the US. He said nobody needs more than $200K to live happily, and called for the confiscation of all wealth above that to be redistributed to the poor. So I cut his share of my will to $200K.

No doubt there are socialists in the US. There are also nazis that suppprt Trump...

There are also UFO theorists and Bigfoot hunters, and undoubtedly some of each voted for somebody for President.

The socialists in the US nearly nominated somebody, Sanders, who identified himself as socialist. It took some interference on the part of the DNC to lock Sanders out. But it is safe to say that about 40% perhaps more of the Democratic base supported the socialist.

OTOH, no Republican candidate ran as a nazi, none wanted their support, and any nazi votes in the primaries were neglible in their effect, possibly less important than the votes of the Bigfoot hunters.

Lots more socialists in the US than Nazis. LOTS more.

Not the same, Lad, and surprised you make this silly argument. But you are surprising me less and less daily.

(02-06-2019 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And funnily your own provided definition of socialism doesnt cover your proffered example of Venezuela.

I thought that Venezuela had nationalized their oil reserves and thus owned the means of production of a national resource?

So your definition is now if they only ntionalize one industry it is a socialist system. Got it. I guess using that interesting definition the city of Austin via Austin Power is socialist in your book..

Your proferred definition said 'owns *the* means of production, not *a* means as production.

So using your apparently perfect definition neither Venezuela nor China are socialist since many forms of private ownership of means exist in esch country.

I find that result stupid as fk. Ergo your definition has flaws.

Clear?

I can demonstrate about a dozen mor examples that indicate an issue with the definition of socialism you put forth. Shall I continue?

I guess I don't follow your point. I provided literal, textbook definitions of socialism, and you're trying to argue that they aren't correct? And that instead, socialism is defined by how you would like to define it?

Well, that seems convenient.

Also, I love that you're trying to ascribe two primary sources' definitions of socialism to me, as if I have some stake in Merriam-Webster being accurate. I'm just looking at the dictionary and telling you what it says regarding socialism. So it isn't MY definition, it's the literal definition of socialism that is flawed. But the Tanq definition of socialism is absolutely perfect and infallible.

(02-06-2019 08:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My discussion with a young (25) socialist (Sanders supporter) leads me to believe they actually do want socialism in the US. He said nobody needs more than $200K to live happily, and called for the confiscation of all wealth above that to be redistributed to the poor. So I cut his share of my will to $200K.

No doubt there are socialists in the US. There are also nazis that suppprt Trump...

No doubt either that the vast, avst majority of 'progressives' can readily be classified as 'collectivists' and/or 'redistributionists'?

I would say, as a proportion, a fkload more Democrats (probably much more than a majority) hold those views than Nazis who support Trump. But you knew that....

But cute attempt at a retort.

Well, at least you've stopped calling them socialists, I'll take that as a positive step in the right direction.

(02-06-2019 10:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My discussion with a young (25) socialist (Sanders supporter) leads me to believe they actually do want socialism in the US. He said nobody needs more than $200K to live happily, and called for the confiscation of all wealth above that to be redistributed to the poor. So I cut his share of my will to $200K.

No doubt there are socialists in the US. There are also nazis that suppprt Trump...

There are also UFO theorists and Bigfoot hunters, and undoubtedly some of each voted for somebody for President.

The socialists in the US nearly nominated somebody, Sanders, who identified himself as socialist. It took some interference on the part of the DNC to lock Sanders out. But it is safe to say that about 40% perhaps more of the Democratic base supported the socialist.

OTOH, no Republican candidate ran as a nazi, none wanted their support, and any nazi votes in the primaries were neglible in their effect, possibly less important than the votes of the Bigfoot hunters.

Lots more socialists in the US than Nazis. LOTS more.

Not the same, Lad, and surprised you make this silly argument. But you are surprising me less and less daily.

Bernie ran as a democratic socialist and was pretty explicit that he didn't want government to own the means of production and would still rely upon the free market to drive the economy.

http://time.com/4121126/bernie-sanders-d...socialism/

Again, this gets to my comment to George - the rights inability to not call everything that is on the liberal end of the spectrum "socialist" has resulted in the word completely losing its meaning. I mean, Tanq won't even take the dictionary's definition of it...