2600 bro wrote:
Adolph Hitler led the German state from 1933 until his death by suicide in 1945.
You're so predictable
2600 bro wrote:
Adolph Hitler led the German state from 1933 until his death by suicide in 1945.
You're so predictable
Just laughing that people think a government headed by Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, and Nancy Pelosi is gonna enact "socialism."
Bound4Glory wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Adolph Hitler led the German state from 1933 until his death by suicide in 1945.
You're so predictable
Never found his body or skull in the bunker; just that of Eva Braun.
Increasing federal power has be the work of both parties since 1960. I agree, it’s not good. Decentralized power is the only protection again strongmen and authoritarians. It’s the only reason Trump will be leaving office on Jan 20. Ballooning deficit spending, useless military interventions, and deconstruction of civil liberties are the only thing both parties (even Trump) can agree on...
Bound4Glory wrote:
hamo wrote:
I'll engage with you seriously for a second. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc - you're right it would be terrible to live under one of those regimes. I agree with you 100% and I'm on the left. But I don't know of anyone who is advocating for that so if you think that's the leftist position you are misguided..
All those leaders were "for the people" in the beginning and started off saying the same things that the Democratic Party is saying. We should expect the same results here.
The problem is that in order to enact a socialist system you have to significantly increase the power of the central government. And then it's always a risk that the leaders will abuse that power. Then they run out of other people's money to spend on social programs, and the economy starts failing everywhere. Now the leaders absolutely must abuse those powers to stay in charge. It's inevitable.
ps. Thank you for your reasonable tone of argument.
Harambe wrote:
Just laughing that people think a government headed by Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, and Nancy Pelosi is gonna enact "socialism."
Laughing at such lunacy is the appropriate response. So many Chicken Littles screaming the sky is falling today.
Bound4Glory wrote:
All those leaders were "for the people" in the beginning and started off saying the same things that the Democratic Party is saying. We should expect the same results here.
The problem is that in order to enact a socialist system you have to significantly increase the power of the central government. And then it's always a risk that the leaders will abuse that power. Then they run out of other people's money to spend on social programs, and the economy starts failing everywhere. Now the leaders absolutely must abuse those powers to stay in charge. It's inevitable.
ps. Thank you for your reasonable tone of argument.
Yeah no problem, I appreciate your tone too.
I buy your argument as a worst case, slippery slope type thing. What if we're not trying to implement a socialist system? What if I just want universal healthcare so that I don't go bankrupt if I get cancer? So keep the rest of the capitalism - billionaires, freedom, etc. but instead of insurance premiums going to a health insurer there are no insurance premiums and the taxes are higher? I've seen arguments that actually the total amount I pay would go DOWN, which sounds crazy at first until you realize that we spend more per capita in our private healthcare system than other countries do in their public systems. So we are already spending too much. With the efficiencies that come from a central system, and cutting out the middlemen of unnecessary health insurers it at least seems possible that costs could go down.
But OK - let's say you disagree on the cost argument. Let's just address what I think is a slippery slope. Why must universal healthcare necessarily lead to leaders abusing power? You say it's inevitable but it doesn't seem like it has to be. Why can't we just look more like Canada? How come they could introduce universal healthcare without creating a dictatorship? Or basically all of Europe.
Why does this one thing lead to freaking Pol Pot? I don't get it.
Harambe wrote:
Just laughing that people think a government headed by Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, and Nancy Pelosi is gonna enact "socialism."
Joe Biden has committed so many impeachable offenses that he will be forced to do whatever Congress wants him do.
We're doomed because we'll have a return to some semblance of a functioning government and return to normalcy?
Sorry but the fantasy you've fallen for that the US is going to turn into some kind of socialist dictatorship is not going to happen.
First they took our guns, next they'll take our country!!! ???
Harambe wrote:
Just laughing that people think a government headed by Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, and Nancy Pelosi is gonna enact "socialism."
Clown. Provide proof and sources that they won't. Just because you say they won't doesn't make it so.
ienjoyracing wrote:
republicans would've won if trump hadnt started this whole fiasco of blatantly false claims about election fraud. He split the party in two and it ended up a small portion of republicans didn't even vote republican because they were so enamored with Trump and his fantasy of the election being stolen from him, that they weren't willing to vote for a republican that didn't agree with the election fraud fallacy. Republicans had it in the bag, the only reason it was close in November was because so many people uncharacteristically showed up to vote because they hated Trump. With Trump not being on the ballot, they should've taken it by a lot. Instead they boycotted and lost.
Hush.
Stop being reasonable!
Ah the classic “prove a negative” troll tactic.
Runner10287 wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Just laughing that people think a government headed by Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, and Nancy Pelosi is gonna enact "socialism."
Clown. Provide proof and sources that they won't. Just because you say they won't doesn't make it so.
hamo wrote:
Why can't we just look more like Canada? How come they could introduce universal healthcare without creating a dictatorship? Or basically all of Europe.
Why does this one thing lead to freaking Pol Pot? I don't get it.
We're not getting the well thought out peaceful version of "socialism" where everything pretty much stays the same, except everyone only has half the spending power they used to.
Nope. Not in the USA. Not with BLM and ANTIFA and all that. We're getting hate-based socialism. You watched the news this past Summer. America burned. Downtown was destroyed. Guillotines in front of Jeff Bezos' home. Violent beatings for Trump supporters. Etc. We're doomed.
Considering he likely lives off social security - it’s rather ironic.
this place is good for a laugh wrote:
We're doomed because we'll have a return to some semblance of a functioning government and return to normalcy?
Sorry but the fantasy you've fallen for that the US is going to turn into some kind of socialist dictatorship is not going to happen.
Runner10287 wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Just laughing that people think a government headed by Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, and Nancy Pelosi is gonna enact "socialism."
Clown. Provide proof and sources that they won't. Just because you say they won't doesn't make it so.
Prove a negative, yeah? You're riled up today. Aristotle (Greek philosopher and mathematician) is shaking his head.
Bound4Glory wrote:
We're not getting the well thought out peaceful version of "socialism" where everything pretty much stays the same, except everyone only has half the spending power they used to.
Nope. Not in the USA. Not with BLM and ANTIFA and all that. We're getting hate-based socialism. You watched the news this past Summer. America burned. Downtown was destroyed. Guillotines in front of Jeff Bezos' home. Violent beatings for Trump supporters. Etc. We're doomed.
"America burned." You should look up periods of actual civil unrest in the USA (for starters, the 60s and 70s). If we weren't "doomed" then, I think we will be ok now.
Read up!
Bound4Glory wrote:
We're not getting the well thought out peaceful version of "socialism" where everything pretty much stays the same, except everyone only has half the spending power they used to.
Nope. Not in the USA. Not with BLM and ANTIFA and all that. We're getting hate-based socialism. You watched the news this past Summer. America burned. Downtown was destroyed. Guillotines in front of Jeff Bezos' home. Violent beatings for Trump supporters. Etc. We're doomed.
Well at least you acknowledge the possibility of the well thought out peaceful version. I disagree that it would take half your money but we can disagree. As someone on the left, let me tell you the well thought out peaceful version is what I have in mind, as well as everyone else I know. The rioters you saw were a vocal minority and I condemn them.
If it's any consolation I don't think things will be as bad as you fear over the next two years before the GOP wins the midterms. I know I can't prove that and we'll have to just wait and see but I'm hoping your dread at our future will subside when you see what happens. Cheers and have a good one.
Harambe wrote:
"America burned." You should look up periods of actual civil unrest in the USA (for starters, the 60s and 70s). If we weren't "doomed" then, I think we will be ok now.
That's actually a good point. You could argue things were looking a lot worse back then. The big difference was that the news media, and most of the establishment very much opposed to the rioters back then. That didn't happen this time around.
Thugs break through police lines and storm federal property and the police do nothing. I wonder if they will get shot for not obeying the law. Look at all the white people out there trying to subvert democracy because they didn't get what they want. How sad.
hamo wrote:
Cheers and have a good one.
And cheers to you! Thanks for your insight.