Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What exactly is your proposal?
I propose that we need to curtail the amount of Socialism currently present in the USA mix considering our long standing and growing debt problem which has grown faster than the projected GDP growths can accommodate.
Socialism neither causes nor alleviates government corruption.
No, it simply capitalizes on existing corruption, which Americans have tolerated due to a relatively strong economy.
Socialism is not the problem.Socialism is also not the solution.
Like anything, there needs to be a limit somewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no "line".There is no magic formula.
If that is your excuse for having no limits on Socialism, so be it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no line then?
So to you it would be perfectly acceptable for the government to control all key industries like energy, healthcare, and food production?
By reducing the influence of money in politics we will be able to create a government that actually represents the will of the people.
You do understand that Socialism hands over all the money and the control of that money to the government. If you are concerned about taking money away from the government then you should be rooting for near zero taxation and zero control over the economy so that there will be no reason to bribe the government.
This shows a serious lack of critical thinking skills when you are unable to draw a line at too much Socialism. On one hand you claim that Socialism can work if you do it right, then you demonstrate that there is no limit to how much control a country should hand over to the government.... completely disregarding how corrupt the USA government already is.
I can't take any proposals on Socialism seriously without some limit. Sure there is a mix, but all mixes have limits. You wouldn't use 98% butter in a chocolate cake recipe. There are limits to all mixes.
Considering our growing debt problem, it's likely the USA has already crossed that line, you just are not aware of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Use english words please.
Where would you draw the line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How much Socialism is too much then? Where would you draw the line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I mean don't get me wrong, Sweden still has a lot of problems with heavy government regulation over private education industries, but the fact is that at some point, Sweden actually rolled back a lot of their regulations whereas (with the exception of Trump) USA has been steadily adding restrictive government regulations since FDR. I wouldn't mind paying a higher tax if the USA could drop the crony government regulations. Sadly, I don't see that happening with the current politics in the USA. Sweden only rolled back their government regulations because they were going bankrupt. The USA isn't quite there (yet)....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I would be ok with this version of Sweden...not the garbage version politicians falsely claim just to grab power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Not an exaggeration at all especially if you consider all the licensing and certifications inclusive as regulations limiting competition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
You know what free market Capitalism also rests on? Assumptions that their theories will hold true. They claim that the market is always free and self-regulating, and that a lack of restrictions won't result in a corporate elite rising to power and "purchasing" the entire nation.
I'd say a good 90% of government regulations, especially the ones that limit opportunity and competition, are directly purchased by the 1%
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Socialism and Capitalism are both materialistic economic systems that rely on false premises and a degree of utopianism.
Correct.
Capitalism assumes all people to be equally able to be equally productive and Socialism assumes all people in the government are extremely competent and actually care about poor people at all times. Neither which will ever be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kasmic
It's not a matter of opinion at this point to say Socialism has utterly devastated Venezuela.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kasmic
I'm just saying there are people who thought Hugo Chavez was a great man for the people and equalized the wealth.
And there are people who don't have a clue what's going on in Venezuela right now or even where it is on the map.
BTW my roommate is from Venezuela, and he thinks you are dumb.
Created:
Posted in:
36% of the people can't locate Venezuela on a world map apparently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
how would buying products from Venezuela help their workers or are their workers paid and treated adequately? How about Mexico?
It won't lol. People can't depend on other nations to clean their own house.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Created:
I like how there are no degrees of Socialism: either the government controls everything, or nothing at all.
Cool story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
What's the Nelson Mandela effect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Too bad Hillary couldn't persuade the deplorable idiots.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's a fair sentiment.
Question number one: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a personal promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?
Question 2 is much more relevant to international agreements although my answer for #2 still applies to #1.
Question number two: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a professional business promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?
Let's say for example, that the USA makes an agreement to not burn any additional coal for the next 100 years. At the time of the agreement it was predicted to have a cost of 1 trillion dollars. Five years later the USA discovers that to keep the agreement will cost 50 trillion dollars, which would turn the USA into a 3rd world nation economically. Changing circumstances dictate that the National interests come before the international agreement. Realistically, the USA expects other nations when they form non-binding agreements to pull out as well if their national interests change due to circumstance. The only real international agreements that seem to matter these days are financial obligations, where trust can actually be measured with a dollar sign and a Moody's credit rating. In the end, with nations, most of these agreements are about money, not morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Great answers, and unlike most people on this site, you address the ideas regardless of your unfavorable opinion of the person with those ideas.
it's too bad this site does not have more like you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What do you think of the summary of this book:
Do you think Churchill was a meddling interventionista that caused more war and destruction than peace?
Specifically, what is your opinion of his critique on the 1939 Polish guarantee of independence.
Do you think Churchill's Neocon hawkish interventionista foreign policy will find a revival after Trump?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Hi mr. troll. Feel better?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Answer mine and I will answer yours.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?"
Clearly with all the international agreements the USA has previously broken, there has been a national issue with them. Do you disagree?
As far as the "should" goes, I agree that national interests should supercede international agreements.
Do you disagree? Why?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
These are unratified agreements, not broken agreements.
Really?
Treaties between the US and American Indian Nations (1722-1869)
According to the US national archives, 374 treaties (pdf, p.4) signed between the US and Native American Tribes from 1772 to 1867 were ratified.
All of the Trump withdrawals were also from non-ratified international agreements. What's your real point here?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I've never mentioned any dispute regarding the definition of "National interests".
Fine, then you already know the reason for all these broken international agreements.
Your original question is answered.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Take your pick. Now stop turtling and tell me what you think the term "National interests" means?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody has suggested we ever had a perpetual alliance with Russia. This is a straw-man and a red-herring.
Stop being so defensive and open up.
The phrase specifically asked you if we SHOULD have remained allies with Russia forever. We broke that international agreement. Explain why we did that.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think you understand what a national interest actually is.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Too bad Hillary couldn't persuade the deplorable idiots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Of course it's true. Our interventionista way of life requires a massive military conducting drone strikes killing at whim and enforcing economic embargoes that starve millions. No need for the pretext of innocence when you live in the wealthiest nation on the planet.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You should already know the answer to that.
Should we be perpetual allies with Russia simply because we had a national interest to be their Allies in 1941?
Of course not. National interests supercede any international agreements. This is a universal principle, not just a USA thing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?
I believe that Countries like Hungary and Australia have a valid reason to resist UNHCR when their National interests are put at risk.
UNHCR has no mechanism to punish these countries either. UN resolutions should not be a suicide pact.
International courts are invalid for the very reason of conflicting national interests.
China has already violated the Paris CO2 resolutions, where is the penalty? Sanctions only do so much. National interests always supercede sanctions.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The constitution is not based on UN Laws.
I'll also say that most of the UN resolutions are non-binding, or non-enforceable, and many go against the national interests of America.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you believe the law is not based on any core constitutional principles, but is instead arbitrarily subject to the whims of nine political appointees?
You saw the Korematsu decision from the FDR judges.
Created:
There are no phrases in the constitution that specifically guarantees rights to foreign invaders or foreign combatants.
"Settled law" is a provable myth as long as the SCOTUS retains its powers. One more judge on the bench wearing a MAGA hat and illegal invaders can kiss their rights byebye.
However the phrase "we the people of the United States of America" appears a few times in the American Constitution, that is the guarantee.
Created:
Posted in:
He successfully baited the left to seem out of touch by getting them to stand up and cheer for themselves.
Created:
Also, here is a bad SCOTUS decision from a court packed with justices from the infamous Fascist FDR.
Sometimes the government can deny Constitutional rights to Americans as well.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Does the US government currently hold anyone "without charges or trial"?
The American Constitution is for Americans, not non-Americans.
Jurisdiction is derived from sovereignty.
There are no guarantees from the Constitution for illegal invaders or foreign combatants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You keep running away from this Socialist Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living. Your arguments live in the cesspit that is America.Socialism works.
I'm telling you that 48,294 Swedish people currently in the USA disagree with you. If you have an issue with them, take it up with them, not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
27000 current living Swedish immigrants disagree with their feet.
Something else I discovered:
Sweden 100 years ago had a political mandate to copy America. Fun times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What do you think of this article?
Created: