Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Has Perfect Cognitive Test Score, White House Physician Says

Pemalite said:
Birimbau said:

One year and the dems are still crying. I'm a libertarian thus I don't like republicans nor democrats, but the dems with the help of the mainstream media have become absolutely disgusting, trying desperately to censor any opposing voice.

Please. Republicans did nothing but whinge when Obama was in power.
Both sides are hilariously as bad as each other in that regard.

thismeintiel said:

The KKK was started by Democrats. Many Democrats were part of the KKK just 50-60 years ago, leading the resistance of the civil rights movement.  Many in thealt-right are pushing for socialist ideals, not something the right embraces. Same goes for Neo-Nazis. Nice try rewriting history, though. 

Citation needed.

Aeolus451 said:

 ANTIFA has been fairly busy doing that and busting up everything because they call virtually all right leaning people nazis. There's the sjw portion of the left that wants to limit free speech by including "offensive speech" as hate speech.

ANTIFA means Anti-Fascist. And by extension wouldn't exist if Nazi-styled fascists didn't start to gain prominence.

The far right and far left are equally as bat shit crazy as each other, but also are not representative of the entire side of their political alignment.

The best place to be is right in the center where you weigh the Pro's and Con's of each sides argument and opt for the best argument for the betterment of all... Because neither the right nor the left get it right 100% of the time.

Errorist76 said:

You do realise that some of the countries with the highest standard of living on this planet do have socialist democratic systems?!

Such as Australia.
Universal Healthcare is such an amazing thing to have.
Not having to give tips is also great thanks to a high minimum wage.

Aeolus451 said:

Redistribution of wealth from rich and middle class, social programs increased to cover everything like utilities/place to stay, increased size of government and it's authority.

Does the US of A do any of this? It happens for the low income earners/un employed here in Australia and with great success.




I know what they say they are but that doesn't mean that's what they are or they fighting against actual fascism. There was no fascists in the us for them to bash except for the imaginary kind. 

I was talking about the actual redistribution of wealth and not minor taxation/social safety nets.



Around the Network
Teeqoz said:
Aeolus451 said:

Fml. Ugh. Please stop assuming the extreme or something absurd. Of course, I don't mean taxing is socialist. Taxes are normal and vital to any kind of government. Excessive taxing or seizing accounts is more what I mean.

I forgot about the Nordic question. Sorry about that. A lot of replies to make that aren't simple. I think that some of them are flirting with it or dabbling in it but they aren't socialist. It affected their economies negatively when they applied it to their markets so they don't mess with it in relation to their markets but they do plenty of socialist like social programs which is fine as long as they overburden them or cause dependecy.

I never assumed you meant that taxing was socialist, I just made you aware of the huge flaw in your definition of socialism, as your definition would imply that. When your own definition leads to contradictions and absurd claims, there's something wrong with it. Since we both agree that taxing is normal and not inherently socialist, that means it's your definition of socialism (which for that matter has little to do with socialism) that isn't good enough.

But okay, you've changed your mind to "excessive taxing". How to you define "excessive" taxing? It's rather arbitrary. Some people think a 10% flat income tax is still "excessive", while some think a progressive income tax up to 45% for the highest tax bracket isn't high enough. So again, your definition isn't concise enough, because different people will have wildly different views of what your definition implies.

When did it affect nordic countries' economies negatively when they applied some socialistic (by the real definition) concepts to their economy? Can you back up that claim? And for that matter, what makes you think Sander's wants to go further than the nordic countries, since you consider him socialist, but not nordic countries?

I tried to give a summarized explanation of it for the sake of expediency but you're either not getting what I wrote so far or you're not being reasonable in what you think I mean with something. 

I go by the normal definition of socialism but I also account for how it might translate into policy. Like how you would change the us into a socialist country over time. I didn't go into the whole thing or touch the surface but what I did mention a bit on, you're jumping to the extreme conclusion on or assuming the worse. To be honest, that's getting on my nerves because it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone when they're doing that shit and I don't think you're gonna stop.

 



Leadified said:
Aeolus451 said:

I have gave examples of his proposals in a few other posts. Ya might want to take a quick look. By redistributing the wealth from the rich (any business) and the middle class thru excessive taxation/fees/fines while increasing regulations, it would likely destroy the economy in short order. His idea of fair taxes is very different than democrats. It would likely turn out worse than Venezuela because we have a lot of guns and plenty of people who don't think of themselves as one people or as americans. 😫

Bernie wants free schooling across the board, universal heathcare, universal pay (I think that is what it's called) and other things that I can't remember. Basically, anything that makes a person dependent on government is something he wants. Just with the free school for all idea alone, even if we took all of rich people's money, it would only fund that for a few years.

I see, I disagree on those proposals being socialist since I follow the definition that socialism is the abolition of private property and worker control of the means of production. Therefore even if Sanders implements the most draconian policies imaginable, it can only be considered socialist till those two conditions are met. Which obviously is more than just redistribution of wealth and liberal social policies and programs. Naturally I don't consider social democracy like Sanders to be socialist but I don't really care to argue about semantics since I don't particularly care to challenge your definition of socialism in this case.

Again I don't think the Venezuela, Sanders comparison holds much water other than fear mongering.

The people means the government or state. The government would ultimately  have to seize the wealth (goods, property, money, businesses) of the rich and the middle class to fund vast social programs and to fund the government.



Aeolus451 said:
Teeqoz said:

I never assumed you meant that taxing was socialist, I just made you aware of the huge flaw in your definition of socialism, as your definition would imply that. When your own definition leads to contradictions and absurd claims, there's something wrong with it. Since we both agree that taxing is normal and not inherently socialist, that means it's your definition of socialism (which for that matter has little to do with socialism) that isn't good enough.

But okay, you've changed your mind to "excessive taxing". How to you define "excessive" taxing? It's rather arbitrary. Some people think a 10% flat income tax is still "excessive", while some think a progressive income tax up to 45% for the highest tax bracket isn't high enough. So again, your definition isn't concise enough, because different people will have wildly different views of what your definition implies.

When did it affect nordic countries' economies negatively when they applied some socialistic (by the real definition) concepts to their economy? Can you back up that claim? And for that matter, what makes you think Sander's wants to go further than the nordic countries, since you consider him socialist, but not nordic countries?

I tried to give a summarized explanation of it for the sake of expediency but you're either not getting what I wrote so far or you're not being reasonable in what you think I mean with something. 

I go by the normal definition of socialism but I also account for how it might translate into policy. Like how you would change the us into a socialist country over time. I didn't go into the whole thing or touch the surface but what I did mention a bit on, you're jumping to the extreme conclusion on or assuming the worse. To be honest, that's getting on my nerves because it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone when they're doing that shit and I don't think you're gonna stop.

 

Okay, but to clarify, you think Sander's proposed policies are with the ultimate goal of collectivizing US companies?

I really don't see how it's unreasonable to point out flawed explanations, but I can at least see that it isn't fruitful so I'll focus on the more important parts of this discussion:

When did it affect nordic countries' economies negatively when they applied some socialistic concepts to their economy? What makes you think Bernie Sanders wants to go any further than the nordic countries when it comes to applying socialistic concepts to the US?



Aeolus451 said:

I know what they say they are but that doesn't mean that's what they are or they fighting against actual fascism. There was no fascists in the us for them to bash except for the imaginary kind. 

I was talking about the actual redistribution of wealth and not minor taxation/social safety nets.

Fascists have always existed in the USA in some capacity.

Ku Klux Klan has existed since the 1860's
American Nazi Party has existed since the 50's.
Aryan Nations has existed since the 70's.
National Alliance has existed since the 70's.
National Socialist Movement has been around since the 70's.
American Front has existed since the 80's.
Stormfront has existed since the 90's.

There has been a massive political shift to the right during the last 10 or so years the world over, which has allowed for fascists/neo-nazi's groups to gain prominence in the political landscape, they are still a minority of course, but they are growing.

The United Patriots Front being a prime example in Australia, who was backed by fascists like Pauline Hanson, Reclaim Australia and so on. - They disguise themselves as "Patriots". - Despite the fact they wish to alter the Constitution that this country was founded on, propagate racism, sexism and homophobia... Conversely, it wasn't until those groups started to gain prominence in the political sphere did their opponents also start to rise up.

Don't get me wrong, I despise both sides equally as much. ANTIFA resorting to violence is immature and stupid and ultimately solves nothing.
The Neo Nazi's they fight back against are fucking idiots.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Aeolus451 said:

I know what they say they are but that doesn't mean that's what they are or they fighting against actual fascism. There was no fascists in the us for them to bash except for the imaginary kind. 

I was talking about the actual redistribution of wealth and not minor taxation/social safety nets.

Fascists have always existed in the USA in some capacity.

Ku Klux Klan has existed since the 1860's
American Nazi Party has existed since the 50's.
Aryan Nations has existed since the 70's.
National Alliance has existed since the 70's.
National Socialist Movement has been around since the 70's.
American Front has existed since the 80's.
Stormfront has existed since the 90's.

There has been a massive political shift to the right during the last 10 or so years the world over, which has allowed for fascists/neo-nazi's groups to gain prominence in the political landscape, they are still a minority of course, but they are growing.

The United Patriots Front being a prime example in Australia, who was backed by fascists like Pauline Hanson, Reclaim Australia and so on. - They disguise themselves as "Patriots". - Despite the fact they wish to alter the Constitution that this country was founded on, propagate racism, sexism and homophobia... Conversely, it wasn't until those groups started to gain prominence in the political sphere did their opponents also start to rise up.

Don't get me wrong, I despise both sides equally as much. ANTIFA resorting to violence is immature and stupid and ultimately solves nothing.
The Neo Nazi's they fight back against are fucking idiots.

The kkk is a child of the left. Just had to point that out. 😹

No one really takes any of them seriously because they have virtually no power in anything in the us. They might as well not exist. They certainly don't warrant the existence of antifa in the us especially if the cost is them rioting and destroying things. They act more like the fascists than the neo nazis do to be honest.

I also despise both sides. They don't make the left or right look good.



Teeqoz said:
Aeolus451 said:

I tried to give a summarized explanation of it for the sake of expediency but you're either not getting what I wrote so far or you're not being reasonable in what you think I mean with something. 

I go by the normal definition of socialism but I also account for how it might translate into policy. Like how you would change the us into a socialist country over time. I didn't go into the whole thing or touch the surface but what I did mention a bit on, you're jumping to the extreme conclusion on or assuming the worse. To be honest, that's getting on my nerves because it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone when they're doing that shit and I don't think you're gonna stop.

 

Okay, but to clarify, you think Sander's proposed policies are with the ultimate goal of collectivizing US companies?

I really don't see how it's unreasonable to point out flawed explanations, but I can at least see that it isn't fruitful so I'll focus on the more important parts of this discussion:

When did it affect nordic countries' economies negatively when they applied some socialistic concepts to their economy? What makes you think Bernie Sanders wants to go any further than the nordic countries when it comes to applying socialistic concepts to the US?

It would lead to that especially if funding became a serious problem and people refused to pay higher taxes or to give up properties. It likely wouldn't happen though. It depend how many things he could made into law.

You're not discussing in good faith when you're drawing extreme conclusions either because you actually think that way or you're playing games. The reason why I mentioned taxation is because that would be main way a newly socialist government would seize wealth, goods, property and businesses from a country that was capitalist originally. All you had do was ask but no, you acted like I meant taxation is socialism. 

I don't know when exactly but it's fairly easy to find. Just look for when their economies weren't doing that good... They were over regulating and taxing too much to point that it was hurting their economy. They changed their mind quickly. Like I said, they were playing with it some. I can look this up more later on, if it seems worth the trouble. An actual socialist country would try to control their market completely and tax whatever they could heavily like foreign goods.

Bernie's comments in general. He mentioned before that he would be happy if everyone had to wait in line for food everyday with tickets....

Does everyone in Europe do that? 



Aeolus451 said:
Teeqoz said:

Okay, but to clarify, you think Sander's proposed policies are with the ultimate goal of collectivizing US companies?

I really don't see how it's unreasonable to point out flawed explanations, but I can at least see that it isn't fruitful so I'll focus on the more important parts of this discussion:

When did it affect nordic countries' economies negatively when they applied some socialistic concepts to their economy? What makes you think Bernie Sanders wants to go any further than the nordic countries when it comes to applying socialistic concepts to the US?

It would lead to that especially if funding became a serious problem and people refused to pay higher taxes or to give up properties. It likely wouldn't happen though. It depend how many things he could made into law.

You're not discussing in good faith when you're drawing extreme conclusions either because you actually think that way or you're playing games. The reason why I mentioned taxation is because that would be main way a newly socialist government would seize wealth, goods, property and businesses from a country that was capitalist originally. All you had do was ask but no, you acted like I meant taxation is socialism. 

I don't know when exactly but it's fairly easy to find. Just look for when their economies weren't doing that good... They were over regulating and taxing too much to point that it was hurting their economy. They changed their mind quickly. Like I said, they were playing with it some. I can look this up more later on, if it seems worth the trouble. An actual socialist country would try to control their market completely and tax whatever they could heavily like foreign goods.

Bernie's comments in general. He mentioned before that he would be happy if everyone had to wait in line for food everyday with tickets....

Does everyone in Europe do that? 

I did not act like that, I even specified that I don't think you mean that all taxation is socialist. I was merely trying to get you to specify, because it's hard to say anything about a concept if it's fuzzy and not specific.

I know that my own country, Norway, has a rather high degree of government regulation, and the state is a large shareholder in a lot of the biggest companies, and some services are provided by the government, like healthcare. I know that the single best thing that ever happened for the Norwegian economy was that the government decided that the oil resources in the country should belong to the entire Norwegian people, so any companies that wish to extract oil from Norway pay a 78% (!) tax on income (not revenue) from oil-extracting revenues in Norway. Of course, when these companies spend billions of  dollars searching for new wells, they don't always find suitable ones, and in those cases, that cost can also be written off and they get a tax-credit. That's an example of how Norway has applied socialistic principles to its economy with great success. Universal free healthcare and universal free education are other examples. Those still remain in place.

(Note: I do not think placing a 78% tax on oil income in the US is feasable nor would it be beneficial, but it has worked extraordinarily well in Norway.)

And I don't claim Norway is a socialist country. I just claim that Bernie Sanders isn't any more socialist than Norway is.

I checked out what Bernie Sanders said, it's some quote from the 1980s:

"You know, it's funny. Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is when people are lining up for food. That's a good thing. In other countries, people don't line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death"

From what I could find, he said it's a good thing poor people are waiting in line to get food opposed to staying at home starving. He never said he wanted everyone to wait in line for food handouts. Just that it's better that they get food at all. And guess what? Poor people in the US already wait in line to get food. Over 40 million people in the US are part of the food stamp system. The US spends 75 billion each year to provide meals to people that are unable to provide for themselves...

To quote yourself: "You're not discussing in good faith when you're drawing extreme conclusions either because you actually think that way or you're playing games."

Clearly I'm not the only one that needs to hear that, given the way you choose to interpret Bernie's words...



Aeolus451 said:
Leadified said:

I see, I disagree on those proposals being socialist since I follow the definition that socialism is the abolition of private property and worker control of the means of production. Therefore even if Sanders implements the most draconian policies imaginable, it can only be considered socialist till those two conditions are met. Which obviously is more than just redistribution of wealth and liberal social policies and programs. Naturally I don't consider social democracy like Sanders to be socialist but I don't really care to argue about semantics since I don't particularly care to challenge your definition of socialism in this case.

Again I don't think the Venezuela, Sanders comparison holds much water other than fear mongering.

The people means the government or state. The government would ultimately  have to seize the wealth (goods, property, money, businesses) of the rich and the middle class to fund vast social programs and to fund the government.

Canada and the United Kingdom are considered by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) to have more economic freedom (score better on property rights, open markets, UK on business freedom) than the United States, despite both countries having the government invested in social services like healthcare and education. Why would the US turn out any differently if such policies are implemented successfully?

No, the biggest problem with a President Sanders is he would inherent a country with poor labour relations and hostile legislation that any system he would attempt to implement would likely turn out half-assed and dysfunctional.



thismeintiel said:
Chris Hu said:

You are talking about fringe movements on the left.  Anyway the fringe on the right is far worse since it includes the KKK the alt right and various other hate groups.

The KKK was started by Democrats. Many Democrats were part of the KKK just 50-60 years ago, leading the resistance of the civil rights movement.  Many in thealt-right are pushing for socialist ideals, not something the right embraces. Same goes for Neo-Nazis. Nice try rewriting history, though. 

The Democrats aren't a synonym for leftism.