What is democratic socialism everyone is talking about.

Socialism technically is a step on the road to pure communism, a sort of halfway house if you will. Under 'true' communism, a state that has never existed among human beings at any point in the history of the world, there is no government. Under that rubric any real communist will tell you that since true communism has never been tried how do you know it won't work, to which my standard answer is it's never been tried because you can't get there from here if your basic building blocks are human beings.

 

Almost immediately

 

If you think doctors should make as much as a welfare queen, then vote Socialism.

 

Here's more:

 

Here's more:

 

Here's more:

 

It's a menu special

 

It's Leninism and not the guy who wrote "Imagine". Putin didn't even like Vladimir Lenin. He thought Stalin got it right.

It was the precursor to Communism that the American left has always loved. It's a system in which the government owns the means of production and everything else.

It's a system in which people have no rights unless and until the government says they do. It is antithetical to the notion that we are born with rights and that the government only has those powers given them through the consent of the governed.

In order to reach the totalitarian nervana, there can be no religion, particularly no religions that ban deifying mortal men like Judaism. There can be no dissent. This is what happens to people who practice religion or otherwise resist the totalitarian state:



Democratic Socialism hasn't worked anywhere, ever. Watch Venezuela. 43000% inflation.

 

Here's more:

 

Boiled down all it amounts to is a bunch of lazy assed drones thinking they are going to get something free at the expense of tax payers.

 

Hitler was not elected. Congratulations on your massive fail.

 

You mean like the farmers that Trump is trying to buy off with free money?

 

“The problem with socialism, in the words of Margaret Thatcher: ‘At a certain point you run out of spending other people’s money.’ Venezuela, one of the richest countries in the world in the 70s — now the average Venezuelan has lost 24 pounds because they’re starving to death,” she continued. “Ninty percent of the country is living in poverty. This is what I need from her. Name one country [where] socialism has ever worked.”

In defending Mehgan McCain's comments, the NY Post correctly stated: "Socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence."

 

Just look at how many people are starving in Sweden, Denmark, Canada, and Japan.

 

The reason the people aren't starving is because they aren't socialist countries. Tell us about socialist countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China, Laos and Vietnam. The Scandinavian countries have stronger social welfare programs enabled by their uniformly strong work ethic, but they aren't socialist countries ---- despite the fact that the Social Democrat Party is in power in Sweden. The real Social Democrats were defeated in 1917.

 

So the Republicans are no longer allowed to call things like universal healthcare "socialism", right? Each of those countries I listed has programs that get decried at "socialist" in America, but you are saying they aren't socialist.

 

Well it's just socialism. Slapping the word Democratic in front of socialism doesn't change the fact that it's socialism.

And I don't think people support Democratic socialism, especially not self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist. If people wanted socialism and it truly was Democratic will then people would vote for it doesn't seem people are.

 

In the early part of the 20th century, they were proud communists, that was their self-designated identifier. Then communism fell out of favor after WW2 and during the Cold War and they hopped to the self-identified "socialist" lily pad. Then after numerous socialist atrocities, they self-identified as "radicals." When that wore out, they gleefully accepted the designation "liberal" one of the greatest semantic faux pas in history by political opposition. Then "progressive" another huge mistake by their political opposition in allowing and accepting that. Now it's "democratic socialism," and just like all their other labels, when that one is shown for what it truly is, just another form of immoral central collectivism, they will hop again and start denying that soon.

All the while they feel free to apply near infinite erroneous, dehumanizing labels to -their- political opposition, "racists," "fascists," "misogynists," "cultists," "deniers," "Nazis," "bots," "white privilege," "wealth apologists," etc. etc. The net is exposing these immoral, thieving hypocrites for what they are, and the public is waking up to their dishonesty and deceit more and more daily.

There are two sides that matter in U.S. politics, the legitimate private sector, and a gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex that will engage in any morally defective, society destroying tactic imaginable to increase their power and parasitic unjust enrichment. Both sides are capitalists, the difference is that one side seeks wealth by voluntary transactions and the other side seeks wealth by means of government force, taxation, redistribution, regulation, and seeks to enrich itself in exchange for the least real, competent work and social benefit possible.

They want the exact same things most Americans want, though they seek to get those things by force and without working or exchanging benefit for them.

 

Unlike the Socialists on the left, on my side of the aisle, we have no thought police. We don't bully people because of what they think, where the eat, and we don't kick people out of places of business because of politicians they support. We don't write bots to attack advertisers who enable free expression of views we don't like. We are not like you Democratic Socialists, aka Progressives aka Democrats.

 

Interesting...so you wouldn't mind it if, for instance, someone knelt during the national anthem?

 

Nope. I don't watch football. I think it's theft from the people who pick up the tab for the venue, but not my problem.

 

But your Conservative brethren seem to have a very big problem with it. I thought your side of the aisle have no thoughtpolice?

 

Disagreeing with multimillionaires childishly and hypocritically protesting the country and system that made them wealthy in front of working taxpayers who may have paid a day's wage just to see them play is neither a particularly "conservative" sentiment nor remotely like "thought police."

If they want to be activists, be activists, quit their overpaid jobs in protest or donate their salaries. Yeah right. Kneeling at the National Anthem is the very definition of empty, hypocritical, dumb-ass virtue signaling, and it doesn't take a "conservative" to see that, just a reasonable adult who isn't a leftist.

 

Here's more
:

 

The "democratic Socialism" that everyone is talking about is an improper name for wealth redistribution in a democratic system.

Republicans - by this definition - are bigger democratic socialists than the Libs. So if you are against this ... Don't be voting Red.