Midterms

I will take their words over yours given your demonstrated lack basic understanding of economic systems and macroeconomics.

 

LOL, fair enough, feel free to be wrong. Seriously, do you even try to provide more than comic relief here?

 

Wrong? You are the one that said those countries were capitalist and soon after said they were extreme left - so which one is it?

 

LOL, you simpleton, you can be both! You don't have to be a socialist to be far left in the context of American politics. Hell being an actual socialist is off the charts left in American politics, you have to go through miles of far left and fall off the edge of the chart before getting to actual socialist positions. The welfare state Nordic model is pretty extreme to the left compared to American politics, but even that's not socialist, and they'd tell you so. It's a capitalist based system....it's a system that wouldn't work if it weren't capitalist and even then the countries that use that model would fail if they had the problems and responsibilities of the US. Hell just the added immigration (legal and illegal) over the past few years, something they aren't used to, might be something that could put an end to their welfare state.

 

So why do you keep calling democrats socialists if they are not truly socialists?

If the proposals by Sanders and co and not really socialists positions, then why do you keep labeling them as socialist programs?

 

It's apparently the semantic game a libertarian will play when they acknowledge that northern Europe/Scandinavia is full of successful countries with high taxes, large welfare estates, and strong unions. (In Bobby's defense, the far majority of his bedfellows believe the narrative that Europe is a giant failed state on the brink of communism. He, at least, knows better.)

So, if you're a financial conservative who believes that all market-based solutions are superior and all state-based solutions are doomed to failure, how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from acknowledging a large number of free democracies with higher taxes and large government programs are successful nations? Re-frame! All those Nordic nations with their happy populations? Capitalist!

Nevermind that pretty much every functioning economy on the planet mixes free capital with social programs, let's not get involved in nuanced debate over the wide spectrum of options nations employ. It's binary.

 

It’s not about Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, or facism.

It’s about bang for your buck. If it financially makes sense for me to raise my taxes but lower my cost elsewhere enough to save money in the short and long run, the social program is a benefit to any type of society. Free market, socialist, whatever.

That’s why I just don’t understand why Dems haven’t yet been able to message the economics of socialized healthcare. It’s such an obvious one and is right there with our police, fire, etc. There’s just obvious economic benefits to pooling the funds of as many people as you can to bring the individual costs down. Basic economics. Why can’t these guys win this messaging war and instead end up fighting with goobers like Ted Cruz about whether or not I personally am a “Socialist” just to scare people who think that means I want the US to become a Communist State.

We socialize expenses in our lives all the time when it financially makes sense. There’s no way to economically argue against having the largest possible pool of people funding an insurance pool just like our police and fire. The military we could argue about bang for your buck but it’s still in theory is important to pool funds as big as possible.

 

A very public family intervention. Wow.

 

....well because there are now Democrats who either call themselves that (wrongly often) or actually are socialists. Bernie is really the problem, he calls himself a socialist and he's not one. He's a capitalist that advocates for a Nordic style welfare state.....the reason that's a problem is that you now have actual socialists like Ocasio Cortez starting to creep in from out of the woodwork. These are absolute radicals, but Bernie is making them seem like they have a spot in the conversation and they shouldn't any more than an actual Nazi should have a spot in the conversation.

 

So who are the other 'actual socialist' besides Cortez and what have she/they advocated for that qualifies them as such?

 

Feel free to read up on them.

http://www.dsausa.org/

 

Gosar's the guy who announced during a congressional committee meeting that because he's a dentist, he's really good at reading body language. Wonder what he thinks about his family's in that ad?

 

lol - DSA is not a political party and has only two members contesting federal office. Cortez for Congress and incumbent independent Ringelstein who only declared to be a democratic socialist last July.

Guess it would be justified to call GOP a Nazi/Racist party given that Arthur Jones is running for house and Corey Stewart is a senate candidate?

From all you have posted so far, it is clear that your periodic characterization of democrats as socialists is just made up BS and political propaganda, no different than all the red meat that Cruz has also been throwing out.

Seems you falsely (as you more or less admitted earlier) characterize democrats as socialists in the hope to invoke ingrained aversion average americans typically have for true socialism, while in truth, their proposal (as defined by you) is actually still predominantly capitalist, just like those found in the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland etc) and most of the best countries in Europe.

The people in those 'socialist' countries tend to have a better standard of living than americans, and thus adopting those ideas would likely improve the quality of lives of most americans. But you dont care about that and are only interested in pushing your (or your patron's) self serving ideas on others.

 

Good ole Bobby. He had to put me on ignore because he couldn’t hack it.

 

It's a socialist organization that has members running for political office, again, that alone shows how far to the left things have gotten to where those kinds of radicals could obtain political power.

Also, I'm not sure if you are failing to follow along because you are "special" or if you are failing to do so on purpose, but I've never called all Democrats socialists.....so your next few lines makes you look especially stupid, which given your normal posts is really doing something.

Anyway, from here on out I'm going to talk about this with your betters because it's clear this conversation is getting nowhere with you.

 

But it is not the democratic party, yet you use them to characterize the democratic party. Isnt it only fair then to characterize the GOP as a Nazi Party using same metric?

Not 'all democrats' but you have claimed that the fringe left are taking over the party and tryng to make them socialists - that is a characterization of the entire party

lol- meaning you will look for those that cant or wont call you out on your periodic BS. Not surprising that those would be your preferred audience

 

This is a false, and really stupid statement.....but given the source, I understand that you are doing the best you can.

The fact that actual socialists are winning elections as Democrats suggests that the left has moved extremely far to the left.

Meaning that I prefer to talk with people who are intelligent and have quality statements to add to the conversation. I don't blame you for your shortcomings, I just find them tedious.

 

socialist wins elections as democrats = democrats moving extremely far left
Nazi and white nationalists win elections as republicans = republicans becoming racist?

Whatever lets you sleep at night