Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The Future of the Democratic Party... enjoy

Honestly Deckard isn't really the fringe. He is a believer in capitalism, strong military, etc.

 

Really? I wouldn't have thought that based on some of his posts in the past. I guess I just assumed that some of his past hot takes along with his intolerance for any diversity of opinion went along with other far left ideas.

I guess it's a



type situation. It doesn't matter though, he won't see what I've said because of his intolerance of ideas other than his own.

 

Capitalism has always killed countless millions and funded wars for profit. Let's not act like it has created utopia.

Wrong. Not going to waste my time showing you definitions and quotes from actual social democrats, I know you don't like facts when they disagree with you and you just ignore them.

The thing is you don't understand that socialism isn't just one thing, therefore you can't reconcile how a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat could also be in favor of capitalist policies.

So, is Bernie plans for Healthcare socialist or capitalist?

I'm not suggesting she's not a socialist lol

I just understand the nuance of political discussion. You on the other hand seem to think all Socialist all want the same thing. They do not.

LOL, watch this...

This does NOT state the end of private business.

Look, and this is something @Bandwagoner taught me...see this word, or?

Owned OR Regulated by the community. Ocasio, from everything I've heard from her, wants to regulate big business, like most democrats. This literally falls under that. It's about giving the workers more power for whom they work.

See this word, this word RANGE? Yeah...should tell you all you need to know there.

Nice, this is from Merriam-webster...now lets SCROLL DOWN and see what else they say...

"In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."

I'm done here.

 

That is all and good. The decidedly conservative USSC disagrees with your legal opinion.

 

That's aggressively stupid. I hope for your sake this isn't actually what you believe.

They are two different things. A social democrat is a capitalist, so they would be in favor of capitalist policies, a Democratic Socialist is a socialist so they'd be against capitalist policies. I'm not sure how many times I have to spell that out for you and people who wrongly label themselves doesn't prove your point.

I give you credit for trying to water down socialism (and occasionally flat out lie about it) to make it more palatable, but it's simply not going to work. When we talk about socialists, we might as well be talking about Nazis because honestly they are every bit as reprehensible.....only the socialists have a considerably higher body count and have contributed more to human suffering. You're just not ever going to sell that to anyone with a fully functional brain.

 

No, it clearly doesn't. That is crap you have been spoon fed but when they take up one to smack down the fourth circuit you will think this is a new low instead of what the law was all along. It will be a shock to you, there will be outrage, and it will all be because of the lies you were told and not reality.

 

I appreciate your concern, but my education on both Stalinism and European democratic socialism are deep enough that I can keep Bobby on ignore. But, I'm thinking more about Americans. My concern is based more on my professional experience with big government folks in my industry that don't know enough and are not wise enough but can't stop themselves from tinkering in all the wrong ways and making things worse. Their hearts might be in the right place but most people, especially in leadership, do not have the humility to approach with caution or to be comfortable with sharing control. There is a lot I would like about adopting a more Scandinavian approach to government. But giving national leaders a wide mandate to make big changes is like putting a bull in a china shop. Look at Trump now. He thinks he has a mandate to change everything about how government operates and he's destroying the country. Mark me down as a corporatist democrat. I'm fine with having a couple of socialists running around Congress. It's probably good to have them around to push people to think bigger. But I want careful people running the show.

 

We can agree to disagree then.

Fact: For the first 180+ years of the Republic, the USSC allowed most gun control restrictions.

Fact: Conservative think tanks 60+ years ago with the backing of the gun manufacturers started aggressively pushing a more pro gun interpretation of the second amendment fo the constitution. They used their political power to get gun-friendly judges appointed and laws changed or tossed out.

 

Yep, sure it has. Unfiltered and unregulated capitalism has destryoed countries and people

I give you credit for skipping over my post and just reiterating everything you said before as if it wasn't just refuted with definitions.

 

Perhaps read Heller, Stevens' dissent, the oral arguments and now think real hard about why in a post Heller world John Paul Stevens wants the second amendment repealed. If you did that, you would be able to post all sorts of facts that don't make you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

 

What about the existing programs? Which of those are socialist?

 

Having arguments on the margin doesn't really apply here. You provided a link called ocasio2018.com/issues I clicked, her issues were extreme.

I disagree with conservatives that think this is good for them because it is bad for Dems. Her winning is bad for everyone except the hard left.
Just you defending her ideas moves you further left.

 

Her winning is good for her district.

As far as the of the country goes, who gives a flying ****? Obviously you do.

 

They just got downgraded in influence. That district no longer has a rep in leadership with an opinion who matters. They have a fringe left freshman instead of the Dem Caucus Chairman. This sort of thing wouldn't matter with term limits, everyone would be in the same boat.

 

It doesn't hurt!

 

Good to know you will be losing sleep over this. I will not.

 

I'm just countering your argument that having a less powerful representative is somehow better for constituents that go to her with a problem. I'm not sure if you have ever contacted or met with your representative, but seniority matters.

 

The people in her Congressional district disagree with you. On this matter, their opinion counts while yours does not.

FWIW you are coming off as a concern troll.

 

I've already stated in this thread you have to trust the electorate. You are coming off as unwilling to have any debate, and annoyed when your points are countered. Either discuss or not, I'm good either way.