OT. The Donald Trump (and Politics) Momentum Thread

[thebuzzardman]

Scandinavian countries are capitalistic countries.

Right. With deeply socialistic tendencies. In terms of how they handle education, health care etc.

No. Schools and hospitals can still be run by private contractors and they're publicly funded just like state-run schools and hospitals. There is no private enterprise in socialism.

No one is advocating the abusive kind like Eastern Europe used to have.

That's the only kind of socialism there is.

If they're being publicly funded but under contract, that's still government run.

I think it's arguing semantics. No one wants a lack of freedom, or no market, but there isn't anything wrong with certain things being regulated or run by the government, whatever you want to call it. To think things could be completely otherwise is fairy tale land.

[Rasho Brezec]

Right. With deeply socialistic tendencies. In terms of how they handle education, health care etc.

No. Schools and hospitals can still be run by private contractors and they're publicly funded just like state-run schools and hospitals. There is no private enterprise in socialism.

No one is advocating the abusive kind like Eastern Europe used to have.

That's the only kind of socialism there is.

If they're being publicly funded but under contract, that's still government run.

I think it's arguing semantics. No one wants a lack of freedom, or no market, but there isn't anything wrong with certain things being regulated or run by the government, whatever you want to call it. To think things could be completely otherwise is fairy tale land.

No. It's a private company that runs the schools/hospitals. They're just financed with taxpayer money.

[CJackson]

Rasho - get a grip buddy. The entire world, when using the term "democratic socialism", is talking specifically about the Scandinavian countries and that political ideology. You want to play a game of semantics that somehow shifts the conversation. Computer Science is neither a science nor about computers but it's the term we have for the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

No, it doesn't. There is no example of democratic socialism. Scandinavians have capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

why are you wasting your time over this?

wikipedia definitions are not a point of view

so what if a pure version of socialism doesnt exist? it has always been a question of degree and how far to the left some parties or candidates want to go in terms of allocation of tax dollars.

that this thread actually used venezuela as proof that socialism sucks is a sign of how debased this thread has become. does anyone really want to base their criticisms of a guy like sanders on the destruction of civil society that was waged on venezuela by chavez?

it is a sorry day when socialism as a value system is attacked for having failed when the most corrupt man who leveraged petro dollars to buy the faith of the poor is the example of its worthlessness. socialism in the way it is spoken of by most people does not automatically convey everything being state run and all wealth is appropriated and the capitalists and the educated are run out of town so lets not be so petty about the definitions

i mean if you want to say everything doesnt need to be turned into a class warfare argument, then ok i can see why that is a reasonable thing to say. but derailing things by claiming there is no pure socialism, what does that gain? you are the one who said its a rainbow so if you believe that then it is all a matter of degrees not winning vocabulary contests

[Cr0w]

Rasho - get a grip buddy. The entire world, when using the term "democratic socialism", is talking specifically about the Scandinavian countries and that political ideology. You want to play a game of semantics that somehow shifts the conversation. Computer Science is neither a science nor about computers but it's the term we have for the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

No, it doesn't. There is no example of democratic socialism. Scandinavians have capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

why are you wasting your time over this?

wikipedia definitions are not a point of view

so what if a pure version of socialism doesnt exist? it has always been a question of degree and how far to the left some parties or candidates want to go in terms of allocation of tax dollars.

that this thread actually used venezuela as proof that socialism sucks is a sign of how debased this thread has become. does anyone really want to base their criticisms of a guy like sanders on the destruction of civil society that was waged on venezuela by chavez?

i mean if you want to say everything doesnt need to be turned into a class warfare argument, then ok i can see why that is a reasonable thing to say. but derailing things by claiming there is no pure socialism, what does that gain? you are the one who said its a rainbow so if you believe that then it is all a matter of degrees not winning vocabulary contests

Venezuela isn't proof socialism sucks its just another piece of evidence and it's hilarious someone like Bernie used it as something America should aspire to as short as 4 years ago. Just because something looks good one year doesn't mean it's going to look pretty 5, 10, 20 years down the line. You need to have sound economic philosophy behind what you do.

[CJackson]

No, it doesn't. There is no example of democratic socialism. Scandinavians have capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

why are you wasting your time over this?

wikipedia definitions are not a point of view

so what if a pure version of socialism doesnt exist? it has always been a question of degree and how far to the left some parties or candidates want to go in terms of allocation of tax dollars.

that this thread actually used venezuela as proof that socialism sucks is a sign of how debased this thread has become. does anyone really want to base their criticisms of a guy like sanders on the destruction of civil society that was waged on venezuela by chavez?

i mean if you want to say everything doesnt need to be turned into a class warfare argument, then ok i can see why that is a reasonable thing to say. but derailing things by claiming there is no pure socialism, what does that gain? you are the one who said its a rainbow so if you believe that then it is all a matter of degrees not winning vocabulary contests

Venezuela isn't proof socialism sucks its just another piece of evidence and it's hilarious someone like Bernie used it as something America should aspire to as short as 4 years ago. Just because something looks good one year doesn't mean it's going to look pretty 5, 10, 20 years down the line. You need to have sound economic philosophy behind what you do.

it is evidence of absolutely nothing but corruption and gross mismanagement of state resources

and you are not an economist. stop lying

[Cr0w]

why are you wasting your time over this?

wikipedia definitions are not a point of view

so what if a pure version of socialism doesnt exist? it has always been a question of degree and how far to the left some parties or candidates want to go in terms of allocation of tax dollars.

that this thread actually used venezuela as proof that socialism sucks is a sign of how debased this thread has become. does anyone really want to base their criticisms of a guy like sanders on the destruction of civil society that was waged on venezuela by chavez?

i mean if you want to say everything doesnt need to be turned into a class warfare argument, then ok i can see why that is a reasonable thing to say. but derailing things by claiming there is no pure socialism, what does that gain? you are the one who said its a rainbow so if you believe that then it is all a matter of degrees not winning vocabulary contests

Venezuela isn't proof socialism sucks its just another piece of evidence and it's hilarious someone like Bernie used it as something America should aspire to as short as 4 years ago. Just because something looks good one year doesn't mean it's going to look pretty 5, 10, 20 years down the line. You need to have sound economic philosophy behind what you do.

it is evidence of absolutely nothing but corruption and gross mismanagement of state resources

and you are not an economist. stop lying

Pretty common in socialist nations I must say. One might say it's an inherent evolution.

[CharlesOakley]

Like corruption in capitalist societies...

[CJackson]

Venezuela isn't proof socialism sucks its just another piece of evidence and it's hilarious someone like Bernie used it as something America should aspire to as short as 4 years ago. Just because something looks good one year doesn't mean it's going to look pretty 5, 10, 20 years down the line. You need to have sound economic philosophy behind what you do.

it is evidence of absolutely nothing but corruption and gross mismanagement of state resources

and you are not an economist. stop lying

Pretty common in socialist nations I must say. One might say it's an inherent evolution.

you have been pouring out a non-stop stream of foolishness. just stop. no more lies. you are not an economist. what kind of psychotic are you to say such a thing? you are incapable of framing an argument and when a factual rebuttal is given you brush it off and say facts dont really matter that they are not the point

you are so embarrassing that if you actually love trump like you claim then you are now his worst enemy with the nonsense you keep spewing. just stop

[CharlesOakley]

I'd say this is pretty accurate:

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/here-are-the-5-main-types-of-donald-trump-supporters/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/donald-trumps-surge-is-heavily-reliant-on-less-educated-americans-heres-why/

[Cr0w]

The Washington Post is what happens when you deregulate for big business and let them run wild. Trump wants to rework trade deals that will be good for lower/middle class america but won't let amazon.com exploit anymore so what does Amazon do? They use a news company they own, washingtonpost to slander Trump absolutely non stop.

The final stop of establishment politics. 1% own big business and have politicians like Hillary doing their bidding. And they own the news too and feed the public like this fool above me their easy to digest narrative about how Trump is the boogie man.

[CharlesOakley]

The Washington Post is what happens when you deregulate for big business and let them run wild. Trump wants to rework trade deals that will be good for lower/middle class america but won't let amazon.com exploit anymore so what does Amazon do? They use a news company they own, washingtonpost to slander Trump absolutely non stop.

The final stop of establishment politics. 1% own big business and have politicians like Hillary doing their bidding. And they own the news too and feed the public like this fool above me their easy to digest narrative about how Trump is the boogie man.

I guess you are a number 5.

5. Fools who believe anything as long as it’s what they want to hear: Let’s be honest, this group is not exclusive to just Trump – or Republicans, for that matter. These types of people are found within any group of supporters. That being said, you have to be willfully ignorant to believe the nonsense Trump sells. I have never seen an instance of a candidate who literally just makes stuff up on the fly that his supporters never question. In fact, even after his massive 9/11 lie about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey, you began to see people claiming they saw the same thing – even though it literally never happened.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/here-are-the-5-main-types-of-donald-trump-supporters/

You wave your magic wand and suddenly Trump can never do wrong in your mind. If something positive is written about him, you believe it. If something negative is written about him, its a conspiracy. Who needs facts when you believe something strongly enough. Trump is a 1% but all the other 1%ers are scared of him and are out to get him. He only cares about the common man and "making America great again" even though he has never done anything for the common man in his entire life.

Still waiting for one fact that points to Trump being fit to be president...

[Rasho Brezec]

it is a sorry day when socialism as a value system is attacked for having failed when the most corrupt man who leveraged petro dollars to buy the faith of the poor is the example of its worthlessness. socialism in the way it is spoken of by most people does not automatically convey everything being state run and all wealth is appropriated and the capitalists and the educated are run out of town so lets not be so petty about the definitions

But that's the thing. There is no example of socialism working to the benefit of the people anywhere in the world. Every attempt at socialism eventually devolves into economic poverty, brain drain and state corruption. Just like Orwell wrote it.

[thebuzzardman]

The Washington Post is what happens when you deregulate for big business and let them run wild. Trump wants to rework trade deals that will be good for lower/middle class america but won't let amazon.com exploit anymore so what does Amazon do? They use a news company they own, washingtonpost to slander Trump absolutely non stop.

The final stop of establishment politics. 1% own big business and have politicians like Hillary doing their bidding. And they own the news too and feed the public like this fool above me their easy to digest narrative about how Trump is the boogie man.

Regulate business? Sounds like Socialism.

[CJackson]

it is a sorry day when socialism as a value system is attacked for having failed when the most corrupt man who leveraged petro dollars to buy the faith of the poor is the example of its worthlessness. socialism in the way it is spoken of by most people does not automatically convey everything being state run and all wealth is appropriated and the capitalists and the educated are run out of town so lets not be so petty about the definitions

But that's the thing. There is no example of socialism working to the benefit of the people anywhere in the world. Every attempt at socialism eventually devolves into economic poverty, brain drain and state corruption. Just like Orwell wrote it.

issues of allocation of taxation and totalitarianism are not quite the same talking points tho. since you are probably part of the former soviet hegemony, if i say stalinism and maoism was more about colonialism, slavery and terror than about the collective good does that mean i dont understand the historical meaning of "communism"? I dont think so. thats what checks and balances are for.

overly centralized power surely leads to corruption in all political systems so i recognize the frustration about current affairs most people are having even when i dont agree on policy.

i wanted sanders for one reason. he is the only american candidate in a long time who made it one of his primary issues to reform campaign finance law. this attacks the root cause of corruption in our system. and nobody has had the balls to run on that issue and he did. other stuff he said was probably too much for many and i understand why but he really was the only one who proposed the one thing that would produce real change.

and he has already proven you can run for president on small citizen donations so he has made history even if he is not the one who gets elected. that is a very big deal because he has validated the ability to run for office without super pac money. this is why he is such a big threat to established interests, not because of "socialist" ideas

that to me that is about reforming one of the broken rules that make real democratic elections harder

and definitions of socialism is really not the point. how we spend our tax money is

[CJackson]

The Washington Post is what happens when you deregulate for big business and let them run wild. Trump wants to rework trade deals that will be good for lower/middle class america but won't let amazon.com exploit anymore so what does Amazon do? They use a news company they own, washingtonpost to slander Trump absolutely non stop.

The final stop of establishment politics. 1% own big business and have politicians like Hillary doing their bidding. And they own the news too and feed the public like this fool above me their easy to digest narrative about how Trump is the boogie man.

Regulate business? Sounds like Socialism.

governance = regulations. are we going to dumb down everything now?

[Rasho Brezec]

it is a sorry day when socialism as a value system is attacked for having failed when the most corrupt man who leveraged petro dollars to buy the faith of the poor is the example of its worthlessness. socialism in the way it is spoken of by most people does not automatically convey everything being state run and all wealth is appropriated and the capitalists and the educated are run out of town so lets not be so petty about the definitions

But that's the thing. There is no example of socialism working to the benefit of the people anywhere in the world. Every attempt at socialism eventually devolves into economic poverty, brain drain and state corruption. Just like Orwell wrote it.

issues of allocation of taxation and totalitarianism are not quite the same talking points tho. since you are probably part of the former soviet hegemony, if i say stalinism and maoism was more about colonialism, slavery and terror than about the collective good does that mean i dont understand the historical meaning of "communism"? I dont think so. thats what checks and balances are for.

overly centralized power surely leads to corruption in all political systems so i recognize the frustration about current affairs most people are having even when i dont agree on policy.

i wanted sanders for one reason. he is the only american candidate in a long time who made it one of his primary issues to reform campaign finance law. this attacks the root cause of corruption in our system. and nobody has had the balls to run on that issue and he did. other stuff he said was probably too much for many and i understand why but he really was the only one who proposed the one thing that would produce real change.

and he has already proven you can run for president on small citizen donations so he has made history even if he is not the one who gets elected. that is a very big deal because he has validated the ability to run for office without super pac money. this is why he is such a big threat to established interests, not because of "socialist" ideas

that to me that is about reforming one of the broken rules that make real democratic elections harder

and definitions of socialism is really not the point. how we spend our tax money is

I have no issue with Sanders, he seems like an honest guy, which makes him a unicorn in politics. I just don't like his misuse of the word socialism, because it makes the voters misuse it, too. Nothing about Sanders is socialist and it's a bit stupid of him to keep labeling himself as such.

[CJackson]

But that's the thing. There is no example of socialism working to the benefit of the people anywhere in the world. Every attempt at socialism eventually devolves into economic poverty, brain drain and state corruption. Just like Orwell wrote it.

issues of allocation of taxation and totalitarianism are not quite the same talking points tho. since you are probably part of the former soviet hegemony, if i say stalinism and maoism was more about colonialism, slavery and terror than about the collective good does that mean i dont understand the historical meaning of "communism"? I dont think so. thats what checks and balances are for.

overly centralized power surely leads to corruption in all political systems so i recognize the frustration about current affairs most people are having even when i dont agree on policy.

i wanted sanders for one reason. he is the only american candidate in a long time who made it one of his primary issues to reform campaign finance law. this attacks the root cause of corruption in our system. and nobody has had the balls to run on that issue and he did. other stuff he said was probably too much for many and i understand why but he really was the only one who proposed the one thing that would produce real change.

and he has already proven you can run for president on small citizen donations so he has made history even if he is not the one who gets elected. that is a very big deal because he has validated the ability to run for office without super pac money. this is why he is such a big threat to established interests, not because of "socialist" ideas

that to me that is about reforming one of the broken rules that make real democratic elections harder

and definitions of socialism is really not the point. how we spend our tax money is

I have no issue with Sanders, he seems like an honest guy, which makes him a unicorn in politics. I just don't like his misuse of the word socialism, because it makes the voters misuse it, too. Nothing about Sanders is socialist and it's a bit stupid of him to keep labeling himself as such.

i have not tracked his usage of the S word but the label is certainly on him

i agree it is not all that relevant to the current situation or even the near future

he does seem like one of the rare honest guys. he would have won the primary if he had adjusted a little bit. not so much more to the center but just by focusing on what people actually think could be accomplished in the first term in the white house. he lost some votes because he did not seem realistic to some

too bad because he had the most real and useful ideas mixed in with some of his bigger stretches. he needed some editing and better managers to help him run with a more refined message. he got a little sloppy and it cost him the game

this is worth reading

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

[Riot Randolph]

The Washington Post is what happens when you deregulate for big business and let them run wild. Trump wants to rework trade deals that will be good for lower/middle class america but won't let amazon.com exploit anymore so what does Amazon do? They use a news company they own, washingtonpost to slander Trump absolutely non stop.

The final stop of establishment politics. 1% own big business and have politicians like Hillary doing their bidding. And they own the news too and feed the public like this fool above me their easy to digest narrative about how Trump is the boogie man.

I guess you are a number 5.

5. Fools who believe anything as long as it’s what they want to hear: Let’s be honest, this group is not exclusive to just Trump – or Republicans, for that matter. These types of people are found within any group of supporters. That being said, you have to be willfully ignorant to believe the nonsense Trump sells. I have never seen an instance of a candidate who literally just makes stuff up on the fly that his supporters never question. In fact, even after his massive 9/11 lie about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey, you began to see people claiming they saw the same thing – even though it literally never happened.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/here-are-the-5-main-types-of-donald-trump-supporters/

You wave your magic wand and suddenly Trump can never do wrong in your mind. If something positive is written about him, you believe it. If something negative is written about him, its a conspiracy. Who needs facts when you believe something strongly enough. Trump is a 1% but all the other 1%ers are scared of him and are out to get him. He only cares about the common man and "making America great again" even though he has never done anything for the common man in his entire life.

Still waiting for one fact that points to Trump being fit to be president...

Texas sharpshooter fallacy... You rework the evidence to to suit your perspective...

[Riot Randolph]

The Washington Post is what happens when you deregulate for big business and let them run wild. Trump wants to rework trade deals that will be good for lower/middle class america but won't let amazon.com exploit anymore so what does Amazon do? They use a news company they own, washingtonpost to slander Trump absolutely non stop.

The final stop of establishment politics. 1% own big business and have politicians like Hillary doing their bidding. And they own the news too and feed the public like this fool above me their easy to digest narrative about how Trump is the boogie man.

Regulate business? Sounds like Socialism.

governance = regulations. are we going to dumb down everything now?

he was agreeing with you...

[CJackson]

The Washington Post is what happens when you deregulate for big business and let them run wild. Trump wants to rework trade deals that will be good for lower/middle class america but won't let amazon.com exploit anymore so what does Amazon do? They use a news company they own, washingtonpost to slander Trump absolutely non stop.

The final stop of establishment politics. 1% own big business and have politicians like Hillary doing their bidding. And they own the news too and feed the public like this fool above me their easy to digest narrative about how Trump is the boogie man.

I guess you are a number 5.

5. Fools who believe anything as long as it’s what they want to hear: Let’s be honest, this group is not exclusive to just Trump – or Republicans, for that matter. These types of people are found within any group of supporters. That being said, you have to be willfully ignorant to believe the nonsense Trump sells. I have never seen an instance of a candidate who literally just makes stuff up on the fly that his supporters never question. In fact, even after his massive 9/11 lie about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey, you began to see people claiming they saw the same thing – even though it literally never happened.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/here-are-the-5-main-types-of-donald-trump-supporters/

You wave your magic wand and suddenly Trump can never do wrong in your mind. If something positive is written about him, you believe it. If something negative is written about him, its a conspiracy. Who needs facts when you believe something strongly enough. Trump is a 1% but all the other 1%ers are scared of him and are out to get him. He only cares about the common man and "making America great again" even though he has never done anything for the common man in his entire life.

Still waiting for one fact that points to Trump being fit to be president...

Texas sharpshooter fallacy... You rework the evidence to to suit your perspective...

Moral of the story:

dont invest lots of time in debating google search posters who go running off to find something they can bring back to reply with