Why do dems continue to lose?

WHAT? OH DEAR! Creation of worker co-ops killed people????? SAY IT ISN'T TRUE!!! But first, prove it.

I agree! That's why I'm not a commie.

No, the problem is the spreading of spin and distortion without the courage to link to sources. And you fall for it every time.

 

When I laid out the basic tenets of Marxism you said I didn't know what I was talking about! Class warfare was one of those tenets.

Yes you did. You said I didn't know what I was talking about when it comes to the tenets of Marxism. Which includes the redistribution of wealth! As laid out in the CM itself.

Are you unable to see quotation marks on your monitor?

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

That's a quote right out of the CM. So were all the rest I provided you!

Yeah, that's what I thought. You started out telling me that I didn't know what Marxism is and that the Democrats of today aren't Marxists.

Now you wind up telling me that you don't care what the CM says or what Marx wrote. Meaning you actually do *NOT* know what Marxism is.

The experience you speak of is legion - Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Angola, Cambodia, and on and on and on .....

You are doing as all Marxists ultimately wind up doing. Blaming the failure of the Marxist nations on not being "perfect" enough.

Experience has is that economic policies that provide no incentives simply don't work. Anything based on the meme "from each according to ability and to each according to need" is *not* going to work. It just totally ignores human nature. It doesn't incent hard work by everyone and it does not provide for efficient allocation of resources.

 

Here's what Marx said: ""Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production;"

That's *exactly* what happened with Stalin, Mao, the Kims, Chavez, Pol Pot, etc. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed during relocations and banishment to work camps known as "worker coops"!

You are *not* a capitalist. Based on what you advocate you *are* a Marxist.

The references have been provided to in the form of quotes from Marx, Engels, and the CM. The fact that you refuse to read them is *your* problem.

 

So you admit I didn't say anyone or any system doesn't engage in class warfare. Good. We agree.

Then I didn't. That's what you're saying. Or since you say capitalism is the best, shall we say that child labor was not objectionable?

Right, and you can't see your monitor I guess either, because more than once I told you your words, quote marks or not, are not evidence, and that you need to provide links to your sources. But you didn't. So don't expect anyone to accept what you type.


Yeah, that's what I thought. You started out telling me that I didn't know what Marxism is and that the Democrats of today aren't Marxists. [/QUOTE]
You have plenty of words, but most of them mean nothing. They're just your distorted opinion. I said if Democrats are Marxists, show me one who opposes capitalism. If you can find one maybe that one is a Marxist. Bernie? I don't even know that he is against capitalism.

You have lots of opinions.

The rest is worthless spin and propaganda.

 

Again, no links. I figure either you are ashamed of your sources, or you don't know how to post links.

You're pointless! I'm done with you.

 

No, we don't agree. You said Marxism didn't include class warfare!

You are trying to conflate moral considerations with an economic system. They are *NOT* the same. Do you even know what the definition of "morals" IS?

The quotes are right out of the Communist Manifesto and Marx's address to the communist league. That *should* be all the reference you need. A URL is *NOT* a reference. It is incumbent on you to go look up the reference!

I have the words of Marx and Engels. You have nothing but your own authoritative statements that actually carry no authority at all!
The Democrats don't have to oppose capitalism, all they have to do is advocate Marxism. Marxism and capitalism are not compatible!

No, *I* have lots of quotes from Marx and Engels. You have nothing but your own opinions.

Do you think people cannot see the quotes I have provided to back up my assertions? Do you enjoy making yourself look the fool by denying I gave you the quotes right out of Marx and Engels?

 

This is right out of the Communist Manifesto. Again, URL's are not the only references there are. Go online and see if you can find the Communist Manifesto.

Or just type ""Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production" into google. It will take you to a URL from baylor university of the Communist Manifesto.

*YOU* said originally that you had read all about Marxism. It's apparent you haven't or you would know this quote.

It's obvious that you are LYING about how much you know about Marxism and how much you have read about it. It's obvious you haven't even read teh Communist Manifesto!

 

Upside, my Friend, debate with Leftists is futile, impossible. It's like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks pieces over and craps all over the board.

 

The sad thing is that this guy doesn't even know what "left" is. He's just anti-capitalist!

 

And naive and idealistic... like all good lefties. Dems keep losing because Barack Obama failed to legitimize the Dems agenda. They had 8 long years to 'lead' America into the progressive promiseland and failed miserably. Now they dont even have an agenda... just HATE.

Hate Trump
Hate Trump supporters
Hate the RIch
Hate Businesses
Hate Religion (except Islam)
Hate Whites
Hate Police

And the list goes on and on...

They lose because they deserve to lose.

 

So true.

 

______
Kode, I suggest you give it up. Upside222 not only schooled you but then took you to the woodshed for punishment.

 

Kode is like a less articulate Hillary Clinton.

 

Love ya, Babe.

 

______
Oh come on you're just angry because you didn't get those free rose colored glasses, Obama phone and a unicorn.

 

They got too big for their britches and waaaaay to far to the left. We are a center/moderate country

 

Because they offer no solutions. Their entire ideology is now this: No matter who you are, you are a victim and we are going to "get" the people that did it to you (aka innocent bystanders to the problems of the victim, whose "crime" is they themselves not being a victim). If you ask specifically how they will make that happen, you get a blank stare.

 

Debbie Dingall on the talk shows yesterday "We are stronger together" was her "message" for the Marxist Dems. Sounded just like Hillary. "We are for the poor" "We are for the minorities" "We are for the ______" (fill in the blank)

This is a *message*? This is what you would hear at a cheerleading competition!

I heard not one single actual legislative proposal from any Marxist Democrat on Sunday. Only whining about the GOP and what they are trying to accomplish!

I can tell you exactly what their proposal to fix Obamacare is going to be -- RAISE TAXES AND INCREASE SUBSIDIES TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO KEEP THEM IN THE OBAMACARE EXCHANGES!

 

We do. Liberty.

Equals "Greater Freedom". We are the sovereigns here, the government only regulates (makes regular, the word does not mean prohibit) those items constitutionally granted to them, by us, to regulate, and then only when one of our actions impedes on the Liberty and Rights of another, and such regulation must be the least intrusive means available to accomplish the need of the State to accomplish its constitutional duty.

Blithering horse-**** that you pulled out of your Donkey.

Don't trust the Elitists. They are always far more interested in governing others than they are in governing their-selves, which is the task they really need to be engaged in.

Bull ****. They they think they have a divine right to make our decisions, for us, and we think they should jam this desire up their asses.

More bullshit. There is nothing complicated about Rights, Freedom, Limited Government and Liberty.

Yes. That's pretty simple.

More bull ****.

Hear! Hear!

Freedom and Liberty have won a lot of US elections.

Trouble is that many "progressives" busy body religious zealots, they have simply stripped the divinity from their idols. Many are no different than religous fundamentalists, they both want to micromanage the affairs of others, they are different sides of the same bad penny.

You don't understand Freedom and Liberty.

Always with the fkn racism. Freedom and Liberty are color blind.

The Trump administration EPA announced that they will rescind one of the biggest power-grabs by a federal agency in U.S. history. Obama's EPA tried to grab the entire nation by the *****.

In 2015, the Obama EPA finalized a rule that would have brought almost all "navigable" waters in the U.S. under federal government control. The "Waters of the U.S." rule targeted creeks, streams, and inland rivers even if they were on private property.

The rule would have given the EPA jurisdiction not only over the water, but over much of the surrounding land as well.

But one of the first acts of the Trump administration was to order a review of the rule with the intent of repealing it.

Promise Kept!

The Hill:

"The final WOTUS rule issued by the last administration was unworkable, a fact acknowledged by courts around the country, and amounted to a massive grab of regulatory authority by an EPA that was overreaching."

"We look forward to working with Administrator Pruitt and his team to craft a rule that protects public health and the environment, while giving clarity and certainty to our nation's farmers and job creators."

"Today marks the beginning of restoring private property rights while protecting our environment," said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.). "Out of state D.C. bureaucrats shouldn't impose regulations that hurt Montana farmers, ranchers and landowners."

Obama's WOTUS rule was spectacular overreach. It massively interferes with agriculture, not to mention overturning the entire concept of private property. The gains in drinking water cleanliness are minuscule.

The Obama EPA sought to use the Clean Water Act for purposes it was not remotely intended to address. It was a power-grab by the EPA that weakens private property rights while exercising stifling regulatory control. While it won't receive a lot of publicity, rescinding this rule represents one of the biggest roll-backs of federal power in history.

The dream of greens is that eventually, the EPA will exercise control over every inch of land, every drop of water in the U.S. – a nightmare scenario that was well on its way to becoming reality until the Trump EPA stepped in. Hillary would have continued it. Thank GOD for Trump!

 

'Only when one of our auctions impedes on the Liberty & Rights of another' - a very good argument for the protection of US waterways; to safeguard the Liberty & Rights of others from the actions that prove to threaten it. Are we really going to call Obama a jack-booted fascist because he aimed to protect fresh water in this country by standardizing the regulations nationwide? Water is a fundamental necessity of the human condition. Perhaps my position is that I don't care to control the body of water on your property; but I will vote to make sure you don't poison it for the rest of us downstream.

This isn't 1776 anymore. This isn't pre-industrial America. A man on his property is no longer an island. Pesticides and industrial waste were not a problem then like they are today. Lets not pretend the Founding Father's knew best how we should legislate technology, chemicals and their unintended consequences; or ponder what George Washington; a man who died because his doctor bled him to fight a fever; would have done today on healthcare reform?

You're a great illustration of my point; someone that speaks broadly of things like Liberty & Freedom, without actually being specific. The devil is in the details, Zorro. And too often I find; the details for the modern Conservative are less important than the idea.

Here's a different read on that:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-epas-dangerous-anti-regulatory-policies

The details are the concern, Zorro. And in this fight; cronyism and short-term profit won out over rational, measured regulation.

 

Exactly, the State must show that it has a compelling need to regulate in an area defined as Constitutionally under its purview and then it must use the least intrusive means available, in order to realize that compelling interest.

So long as it meets those two tests, I have no problem with that.

Obama is old news, it's time for you to move on.

Indeed.

Well, when you figure out what your position is, by all means share it.

Good position.

No ****?

WTH?

Islands?

So what? We have the necessary power to regulate.

You have constructed a Staw-man, doused it with gasoline and lit it on fire. Splendid Work!

Thank you.

They are broad topics.

Courts apply legislation to specific cases and the need to do so with a presumption of Liberty.

Which is why we have a court system.

Cronyism is generally government allied and is a destroyer of Liberty and Freedom.

I find most arguments against "profits" are actually arguments against rent-seeking, another destroyer of Freedom and Liberty.

I support measured, rational regulation. I suspect we agree on far more than we disagree on. And when we ALL realize that, all I can say is "LOOK OUT!" to the Swamp that has been steadily taking our Freedom and Liberty! And it is OURS not theirs!

Whenever a small minority controls as large majority, they live in fear of uprising and they become consumed with insulating themselves against it. And for good reason. That is the genius of our Framers, they keep these power centers split up and locked in conflict, preserving our Liberty. We have the tools we need to preserve our Liberty and Freedom, we merely need the brains and the balls to put these Constitutional tools to use and the fortitude to hold our elected officials accountable!

 

Democrats increased their numbers in the House & Senate in 2016.

 

To the first point; the cost of the uninsured is already factored into our healthcare spending both collectively as a country as represented in our GDP; and passed along to the consumer by the healthcare industry. When an illegal alien or uninsured American goes to the emergency room; they're treated regardless; and the rest of us pay for it indirectly.

And to the second point; I will let the market react to the change in systems; whether the tax is implemented like FICA with required matching, or completely separate. For those who have their healthcare completely taken care of by their employer; but then changed to completely taken care of by their government; they will have to decide for themselves whether they come out ahead or behind and whether they ask their current employer to compensate the difference for them or find a different job.

For such a sweeping change, as universal healthcare would be, I do not anticipate an overnight perfection. There will be an adjustment period; just like with any major change.

If Canada has an 85% survivability for breast cancer diagnoses and we have an 88% survivability; we're both doing very well. The difference is; we spend another 50% of our combined wealth on healthcare than they do. We spend another trillion dollars annually for three percent; and you're telling me that makes good economic sense.

And as to rationing; we do it already - it's just privatized. When the insurance company says no to a procedure recommended by your doctor; what are you going to do? Pay out of pocket; the same as you would in a universal system if you were denied coverage for that procedure.

Jeez ya know; I wonder how every other Western Democracy can do it? It must be impossible; we shouldn't even try.

The true insanity of your position is that you think that those grandmas aren't dealing with that already; that insurance companies aren't already telling folks "oh wait, you're not covered for that" or "oh, well, we'll cover this much, but for you to get that knee replacement, you'll have to come up with X amount that we'll pair with what we've got" to which they'd have to save up for six months to afford.

Yea, I made 70K installing Solar in NY for a year; it was a good year and I didn't need a college degree to do that... but that, and your friend's son situation, doesn't change the risk that by avoiding a college degree; you will have given the vast majority of your peers a leg up for the rest of your life. A welder or solar installer without a degree does not have the same flexibility to adjust their career or change jobs like a college graduate does.

Infrastructure spending is done through taxation; regardless of whether it's local, state or federal - they often work in concert on large projects; and that's for what I advocate. We already had Social Security for two decades during the 50's and for four decades by 70's... we also had shorter life expectancies and were without the the imminent retiring boomer generation. And yes, healthcare costs have exploded over the last three decades, and because of that so has medicaid and medicare - and what is your plan? Do you have one? Is there a coherent plan coming from your side of the aisle? What is the Conservative solution to rising healthcare costs?

I'm open to raising the social security collection age on my generation because the life expectancy for me is far longer than for my great-grandfather.

Argument without nuance or substance? Again? "The entire financial crises of 07 was caused by Democrats and democratic policy. It was only Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's fault. It was only because of the deregulation of Wall Street under Clinton (even though which party is doing the same now; after only a decade after the crises started?)."

Lets forget about the banking industry's complicity and the inability of the financial market to regulate itself. Huge meltdowns like the one seen in 2007, the worst since the Great Depression, are far more complicated and far reaching than the simple; talk radio talking points that permeate the political discourse. You just blamed the entire financial meltdown on Democrats; whom you label as Marxists. If that's not right out of the Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh playbook; than I don't know what is... It's partisan, reactionary and most of all, uninformed.

Christ; I'm not looking to have "a big impact" on the rich. I'm not interested in taxing them out of their wealth. If you're saying my small 2-5% tax increase on income for the top 5% of Americans wouldn't affect them so much; then great lets do it and use that money to make trade school more affordable for the average American - how about that? Agreed?

Why is work and investment treated differently? Perhaps it is because we live in a competitive reality and we cannot afford to increase taxation on investment too much without diminishing the necessary investment we need, but there has to be a middle ground. There must be a reasonable place we can find where there isn't a wild disparity in both wealth and the way earned income is taxed as opposed to investment income. I'm saying presently the pendulum has swung too far in one direction; towards the wealthy/investor class, and needs to swing a bit back this way towards the middle class. That will require redistribution; as it always has in this country and in every other country that ever existed. It used to be folks like you and folks like would argue over the amount; argue over the degree. But presently your position; and many of your stripe; hold the position that all redistribution is morally wrong and there can never be compromise and that you are looking to undo the New Deal and the societal fabric the country has had for the past eighty years. You sir, are the radical, not me.

 

I think people see Democrats as the party of Hollywood crybabies and poop rights for confused people. Why would I vote for the person that is endorsed by Alyssa Milano and Bruce Jenner? Why should their opinions matter to anybody?