Democrats Are Not Socialists

1. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Really?   Prove it!
   
   What do democrats NOT agree with as far as socialism? What principles DO the democrats stand with?
   
   Wondering!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Republicans are not stooges of the oligarchy.
      
      Really? Prove it!
      
      What do Republicans NOT agree with as far as the confluence of power and money? What principles DO the Republicans stand with?
      
      Wondering!

      replyreport
   2. 68

      Bored Studentposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Are you assuming democrats are a monolithic group with no diversity of opinions? Some democrats certainly do believe in socialist values. Others do not. I think you need to define your terms. What do you mean by "democrat"? What do you mean by "socialist"?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, that’s what she’s assuming. Perhaps it’s been too long since she learned about the political spectrum in junior high.

         replyreport
   3. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Democrats used to be the party of reason so to speak.  However, during recent decades, the Democrat Party has metamorphosized into the United States Socialist/Communist Party.  The inane, socialistic policies of the Democrat Party has caused many Democrats to either vote or become Republican.
      
      The Democrat Party has become a party of freebies regarding social programs which is taking away tax dollars from the middle class who work hard for their money & should keep it.   The Democrat Party instituted this insane health program called Obamacare(what a load of &**)-health care is a PERSONAL responsibility, not one of the government.  The Democrat Party created the mess that America is in today through its welfare & social programs which encourages poverty & irresponsibility.
      
      The Democrat Party wants either free or low cost programs which means that the middle class has to pay taxes to maintain these things.  I SAY NO- cut the social & welfare programs by 90-95% & eliminate government sponsored healthcare ALTOGETHER!   It is about time that each person pulls HIS/HER weight if they want to live a comfortable lifestyle.   No one owes anyone anything!   Work or DO WITHOUT!   Why should others be supported?!

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I want to add that the Democrat Party currently is the party of the poor, irresponsible, & in general people who want handouts & refuse to be accountable for their unintelligent actions.  Yes, the Democrat Party has become the party of LOSERS.

         replyreport
   4. 56

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Socialism is defined by my computer's dictionary as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
      The U.S. Constitution's Preamble reads "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
      
      The wording of the Preamble has the same meaning as the word "socialism" therefore this nation is designed to become a socialist nation especially when you include Article 6.3's "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." With the governors being trustees of the people this nation is supposed to be Socialist.
      
      Then add Amendment 10's giving We The People all rights not designated to the U.S. Governors to State governors first and to We The People when they will not do what is required by the constitution, so what do you think the Constitution intended? Surely not the total disregard of the constitution nation we have now.

      replyreport
   5. 81

      peterstreepposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      incredibly simplistic.
      
      As far as I understand US politics. And people in general is that you should not generalize.
      It is a ignorant thing to do and only shows the world in black and white "colours".
      There are Democrats that would consider themselves socialists, but for instance I would not call Hillary Clinton a socialist but center with some vague leftish ideas.
      Berny Sanders is socialist and is a complete different Democrat then Hilary Clinton for instance.
      So is Donald Trump a complete different Republican the W.Bush jr.

      replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   I'll answer when you do.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I was attempting to illuminate the absurdity of your post. I guess I failed.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Why is it absurd?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Why indeed is it absurd?
            
            This is the most relevant post to date!!!!!!

            replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Here is a link for those who need it.
   https://www.businessinsider.com/differe … aW4Wn0Et3w

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "Democratic socialists ... place a great deal of emphasis on social justice in conjunction with pushing for an economy that's largely controlled by workers."
      
      
      "Ocasio-Cortez became the youngest woman elected to Congress in US history in the 2018 midterms on November 6 ... She's a registered member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and is a self-described socialist."

      replyreport
   2. 84

      My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I read it and it is clear Democrats are not socialists.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I am a democrat.  But I consider myself both a socialist and a capitalist.  That is how our country works best.  There are some entities that are better served by social services run by government organizations and some are better served by capitalism.
         
         We need local social services, like law enforcement, fire fighters, paramedics, and local government.  We also need federal social services like the FAA,CDC, FDA that serve the entire nation.
         
         We also need capitalism for business and enterprises, including the stock and bond markets, and other types of investments.
         
         So I am a democratic, socialist, capitalist...and also a realist.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I am an independent who is forced to vote Democratic because the alternative is horrific.
            
            Everybody is a socialist by the conservative definition which is if you help someone or something, you are, ipso facto, a socialist, lol.  Consider
            
            [bReal Socialists[/b] believe in helping people by guaranteeing their rights to education, health, food, lodging, and jobs, among many other things.  They do it by taking over the means of production and distribution and then centrally plan the economy
            
            Democratic Socialists believe in helping people by guaranteeing their rights to life, liberty, health, property, education, food, lodging, jobs, human rights, equal rights, and civil rights, among other things.  They do it by gov't law and regulation using capitalism as the economic system
            
            Democrats believe in helping people by guaranteeing their rights to life, liberty, health, property, education, human rights, equal rights, and civil rights, among other things.  They do it by gov't law and regulation using capitalism as the economic system
            
            Conservatives believe in helping businesses by ensuring gov't provides subsidies and tax benefits as well as reductions in regulations to protect people and the environment as well as stacking the legal deck against employees and consumers.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Many conservatives are hung up on the word "Socialist"  meaning communism.  They are stuck in the 50's and 60's of the cold war and McCarthyism. 
               
               This is what Trump and his cohorts would like others to believe, but nothing is further from the truth in my perspective. 
               
               Trump and his people have already mounted a campaign to re-frame the narrative to mean socialism is equal to Soviet style communism where nothing is privatized and the means of production, collective farming, industrial manufacturing, and centralized administrative planning are based on a centralized controlling state. Tovarish Comrade!

               replyreport
4. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   To Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Democratic socialist, democratic socialism means the government plays an important role in providing these rights of citizenship:
   
   Healthcare
   Quality childcare for all children
   Debt-free college
   Protection from large corporations and moneyed interests which destroy the environment.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Misfit Chickposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for bringing this topic back up to the top, Wilderness.
      
      I was raised in a very Conservative household. But, I do not officially belong to any party - I vote along both/all party lines, depending. Sure I voted for Obama - actually, I voted for 'change' (supposedly the SAME reason you all voted for Trump) AGAINST the wishes of every girlfriend I had who thought I should have voted for Hillary or McCain - just to rebel - when she didn't get the democratic nomination.
      
      I would have voted for McCain if Palin had not been on his ticket. But, my cute little liberal friends who had no experience with conservative extremists were not nearly as aware as I was - of what a bad idea that would have been, had Sarah gotten into office. She would have been about as bad, if not worse, than Trump - simply because she actually BELIEVES what comes out of her mouth, while Trump just uses most of his talk like every other politician: to manipulate his audience.
      
      They might have been a tie, ha!
      
      To answer your question, Kathryn... Yes, these are the things Bernie Sanders believes in, wholeheartedly. There are also a few other Dems who are considered 'liberal democrats' who also subscribe to his extreme ideals. (And note that there are more now since the November elections - you can thank yourselves & Trump for inciting these 'liberals' to action.
      
      You believe a handful of Democrats like Bernie control the party - they don't, although they are obviously trying to take it over.
      
      The truth is, things are the same way in the Republican Party. There are 'moderate' members and 'right wing' members with almost completely different views on how to go about things. John McCain wasn't/isn't the only Republican who thought things like Healthcare should be a bipartisan effort - as opposed to shoving one-sided policies down the entire country's throat.
      
      I'm not sure how the word bipartisan became a dirty word; but I'm pretty sure Conservative pundits are the ones who have pushed that concept.
      
      Most other Democrats are now as irritating to Conservatives - they are the 'Progressive' or 'Moderate' Democrats who PREFER to work within bipartisan lines BECAUSE they KNOW that there are a whole lot of Conservatives in this country who HATE the idea of 100% free everything. Believe it or not, I love my Conservative family; and I don't think they're stupid - just believing people who do not have their best interest at heart.
      
      Creating a countrywide healthcare policy doesn't have to be a 'socialist' thing. Really, a lot of us have ancestors who died under Socialist governments. The fact that Conservative pundits continually insist these things are 'socialist' to strike FEAR in the hearts of their audience is maddening. But, it is how they keep getting votes:  "Vote for us, or the Dems will turn this country into a communist country!"
      
      As a result, we have to address things as they are 'believed in' - not how they actually are.
      
      For instance, you're all mad about Obamacare - but would the GOP work with Dems when it was being written? Eventually, Dems just took it upon themselves to do it since very FEW republicans would work with them. A couple of them did, and that is how existing insurance agencies became involved - as opposed to setting up a whole new government agency for a 'national' insurance agency to work with it.
      
      Of course, even the few GOP who helped work on it didn't vote for it - cuz it wasn't perfect. It may have been a lame bipartisan START, but it was a start... This country needs a healthcare policy UNIQUE to us, that addresses the concerns we ALL have. That doesn't mean socialism, just because we start cooperating and working this stuff out.
      
      You all hate us 'middle of the road' people (who ARE the majority) as much as you hate these liberal freaks. Reminder: Bernie tried to HIJACK the Democratic Party with his extreme ideals (and yeah, he's gonna try again). He is originally from the Independent Party - but of course, he can't WIN unless he runs from one of the two main political platforms.
      
      It was one of the main reasons WHY dem 'leaders' tried to underhandedly dump him over Hillary - because they KNEW he could not win potus with his extremism.
      
      Bernie was no different than Trump, really - just on the opposing side. Trump certainly hijacked the GOP. I like to remind you all of #nevertrump peeps who DO still exist; but you all like to ignore. (I LOVE you guys, give me a decent candidate and I will gladly vote for them. Sorry, that means no more 'right-wing' Palin or Pence tricks.
      
      Also, you can thank all those white male supporters of Bernie's who were MAD about the Dems interfering; and voted for Trump just to spite them. I really don't think you realize how many 'lefties' you've got in your camp. You should be extremely grateful for them - since there are not enough Conservatives to vote in a potus; and you haven't had enough for decades. The GOP needs Dem & Independents supporting it, also.
      
      THINK and STOP believing every extremist view you hear - 'we the people' are FAR more diverse than what you are being lead to believe. The rest of us who do not support Trump are NOT your enemy - you're just being told that, and you believe it.
      
      Read more NPR, Reuters and even the BBC all seem to have more neutral 'factual' news coverage regarding US politics. That goes for liberals, too - your extremist ideals are NOT appreciated either; and some of you are as politically-obsessed with liberal news organizations as any T-fan is of Fox.
      
      I'm positive about this, one of my roommates is a truly SICK in the head liberal - the kind T-fans always talk about. He HAS a big poster of Bernie on the wall in his room that he talks to! One day he is happy because something 'bad' happens with Trump; and the next, he's all depressed because they 'didn't get him'.
      
      If it weren't so disturbing to watch, it would make a really funny sitcom - especially since our next door neighbor is a HUGE T-fan who never leaves the house without his MAGA hat on, LoL! We actually get along well - we just don't talk politics (plus, he put on a really cool fireworks display last year.) But the roomie and him is another story, entirely. Someone called the cops on them, once - but, the cops never showed up, ha! (Maybe you've heard about our (Seattle's) ridiculous homeless and crime problems. If you haven't watched the documentary, "Seattle is Dying" yet, its on YouTube for free. The propaganda push-back from this city's liberals has been amazing: there IS NO problem, LoL!)
      
      What you don't realize is that those kind of uber-liberals that you all keep ranting about are a MINORITY. (Trust me, Seattle's uber-liberals are on the way out, LoL!) Even if Bernie wins the Dem nomination this year, he won't win potus - JUST because of his views. I certainly won't vote for him. No, I won't vote for Trump, either. Why? One simple reason: intentionally divisive bully who only cares about people who support him. He doesn't even TRY to unite this country. Oh yeah, he uses the words every once in awhile in a fancy speech. He obviously never means them. What he says on Twitter - those things he means.
      
      To summarize: There are liberal dems, moderate dems (the majority) AND conservative dems; as well as moderate republicans (these last two are usually from the purple states, but not necessarily) and right-wing republicans (usually religious fanatics).
      
      Get a grip and find the balance, people. There is one that both extremist sides are trying to keep you from seeing - because the fighting is ALL either side cares about. Its what keeps them all in power while nothing ever really changes.
      
      Really. NONE of this fighting is NEW. Its just an extreme rehash of every previous 'fight' we've ever had. We need to stop the pendulum from swinging from one extreme to the other; or we will continue to spin around these various chaotic 'extremes' and accomplish nothing.

      replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   "Socialism can be defined as "a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control."
   
   "In other words, it's a state-controlled economy in which the state controls the means of production (factories, offices, resources, and firms). There are also forms of socialism in which the means of production are controlled and owned by workers."
   
   
   I mean, really if you are a democrat and you believe in these principals, why would't you just admit it. "Yes, I  like a democratic form of socialism and yes, I am against capitalism, but we are pretty much stuck with it."

   replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Democratic socialism means, that in a democratic, civilized society, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes. Bernie Sanders
   
   Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/bernie_sanders

   replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   "What being a socialist means is... that you hold out... a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary, where international relations are not based on greed... but on cooperation... where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire." Bernie Sanders
   Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/bernie_sanders
   
   - maybe someone can explain what the heck he is talking about?

   replyreport
8. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   "I am a socialist; of course I am a socialist. To hold a vision that society can be fundamentally different, to believe that all people can be equal - that is not a new idea."  Bernie Sanders
   Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/bernie_sanders
    
   "As a single-payer advocate, I believe that at the end of the day, if a state goes forward and passed an effective single-payer program, it will demonstrate that you can provide quality health care to every man, woman and child in a more cost-effective way." Bernie Sanders
   Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/bernie_sanders

   replyreport
9. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   "Democratic socialists don't necessarily think the government should immediately take control of all aspects of the economy.
   
   They do, however, generally believe the government should help provide for people's most basic needs and help all people have an equal chance at achieving success."
   https://www.businessinsider.com/differe … aW4Wn0Et3w

   replyreport
10. 60

    Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

    I don't think all democrats are socialists. I think Republican ideology, taken to an extreme, does not serve the best interests of the common man. I think Democratic ideology, taken to an extreme, is socialism which will ruin and bankrupt this country.
    
    Few among us are extremists. All of us want what is best for our country. A little of both works better than all of either.

    replyreport
11. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    The quintessential democrat is one of two creatures today , He is  either the young , liberally brainwashed through the entire education system and grown to accept every entitlement that he ever dreamed of and more .   OR he is the grown ,  matured  Kennedyite politically persuaded through the ideals of political correctness to believe the same as that twenty eight year old genius .
    
    JFK would actually be a new democratic party outcast .

    replyreport
    1. 83

       gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       +100000000000000000000000000000000 in agreement.  The Democrat Party is the party of LOSERS, WHINERS, & THE ENTITLED.  These are the things that the Democrat Party ENCOURAGES...…………. Traditional Democrats are either voting or becoming Republicans.   The Democrat Party isn't the party of the self-made, successful person at all.  In fact, the Democrat Party is a DETRIMENT to the self-made, successful person!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Ed Fisherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          There is no mistaking the new democrats , they either ARE the above OR they accept the impending take over of the traditional party line by the above.
          Democrats ,take a side . if the overall picture of this is perfectly clear to outsiders it should be completely crystal -clear too insiders .   
          
          Democrats will say I have offered a simple man's observation and go into some intellectual spreadsheet of mindless drivel . In the end however liberals will change something in the next to years .

          replyreport
          1. 83

             gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

             The new Democrats want socialism to come to America.  They want WIDE OPEN borders, low cost or even free housing, education, medical care, what have you.     Nothing worthwhile is free.  One has to EARN one's way & pay if one wants quality.   I am for an affluent, self-made, earning America. I don't believe in low cost or freebies.   If one can't afford it, DO WITHOUT & SUCK IT UP until one can afford it, SIMPLE ISN'T IT!   NO ONE OWES ANYONE ANYTHING!   IF ONE CAN'T AFFORD IT, DON'T DO IT!  This is my line since I was a teenager.    I staunchly believe in capitalism & winner takes all..   I believe in the survival of the fittest, smartest, & strongest.       Want something, strategize, organize, & work smart for it!

             replyreport
             1. 66

                JAKE Earthshineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                The above comment is simply riddled with inaccuracies, but unfortunately, that no longer surprising coming from an individual who apparently still supports a dark, twisted, uneducated, incoherent 72 year old who just days ago, suggested that Americans should rake leaves in the forest to prevent climate change induced fires: A suggestion that Finland is bemused by: As if we've supposed to believe the people of Finland actually go out and rake leaves in the wild: UNREAL:
                
                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-4 … 5inSY5txK4
                
                The USA has already incorporated aspects of socialism such as social security and medicare which have been two of the most successful financial and healthcare programs in United States History and no, they are not free but they work incredibly well for our retirees to keep them healthy and out of poverty:
                
                Capitalism a scam developed by republicans, is a FAILED experiment which has made a tiny hand full of greedy people filthy rich while the rest of the 99% of us remain enslaved to 1, 2 or even 3 jobs just to survive, there is a better way:

                replyreport
             2. 81

                peterstreepposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Best best things in life are free.
                
                The most expensive things you can buy are worthless.

                replyreport
          2. 72

             Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

             Christ on a cracker you two sure are bitter. All that negativity is probably not very good for your mental wellbeing.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Hxprofposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                "Christ on a cracker".....Aime, that's a new one for me!

                replyreport
12. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    Aime  , No there is no bitterness from Trumpians , there is however kind of a "Wow ! Look ALL the babies are having a collective fit at once ...." because all of the P.C.B.S. games have done nothing to stir Trump , Admit it , you're all just as angry that nothing you have used as an issue to obstruct has worked !
    -The FBI
    -The SCOTUS
    -The DOJ
    -The Pravda news media
    
    Think about that alone ,  You owned all four of these entities coming out of the Obama fiasco and used every single thing that you could to obstruct , so Teflon Don laughs in your face and you want to blame us ? Plllllease !
    
    So ya ! It's Coo coo for Coco puffs.

    replyreport
13. 78

    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Some democrats are socialist and some aren't.  As it happens I am a socialist.  I am not sure why that is such a terrible thing.  Democratic socialism is working out quite well.  Arguably the US is already a democratic socialist country due to the use of taxes to provide transport, police, courts, firefighting, the armed forces, and medicare--amongst other services.

    replyreport
14. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    Actually America is a Democratic Republic as most know.
    The fact that you and many of the ill informed of all government styles wish it to be a completely socialist state is a separate issue .  Probably ought to catch up on a US history read .

    replyreport
    1. 82

       GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       Well 'actually' Ed, Democratic Republic might not be the best descriptor to use either.
       
       I followed your suggestion and did some historical reading, (by the way, did you know that; Algeria, Congo-Kinshasa, Ethiopia, North Korea,  Laos, Nepal, Somali, Vietnam, Yemen, Afghanistan and  Ethiopia also call themselves Democratic Republics?) ...
       
       ... and from the time of the Framers, (The Federalist #10) - and forward, (Chief Justice John Marshall), there are a few better, and more accurate descriptors to choose from, like; Republic, Representative Republic, Democracy, Representative Democracy, Constitutional Democracy, Constitutional Republic, and even Constitutional Federal Representative Democracy.
       
       Considering the inferences of the associations mentioned above, (you know how folks judge you by the company you keep), I would put Democratic Republic, (even though technically you could call it that), at the bottom of the list of our national descriptors.
       
       You were right about the benefits of a little reading though. Look at what I learned in just 10 minutes.
       
       GA

       replyreport
15. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    GA , I can tell you what America isn't , it isn't a socialist country and not likely to be one anytime soon .   In fact what's more likely to happen in America is we'll become a Entitlosocialism nation where the liberal element will have doubled or tripled the national debt at every single term thereby leaving most socialist states in the dust .
    
    America in 2075 , a brand new politically defined category.
    Entitlocialism .
    
    
    

    replyreport
16. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    Wow , When you made that jump from the preamble to the definition of socialism , even the man in the moon was looking up !
    
    Confiscation of private property and companies begins tomorrow !
    Again ,
    

    replyreport
    1. 56

       The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       Was that to me, Ed?
       
       Maybe you forgot, the constitution was given to its writers by the Natives of the Americas who had a verify peaceful way of life before the Europeans decided they wanted to claim the land they were willing to share and teach them the life of peace. The land was a "land of plenty" before the founders chose to follow their old traditions rather than what is written in the constitution and refused to protect the People and Territory of this nation.
       
       Now, all of the Americas has become a battleground for the greedy and the whole of the U.S. congress want that because they are all are being bribed is why out of 535 well over 500 are millionaires. But no one looks around to see there are thousands living on the streets thanks to the greedy who outscore the available jobs to slave labor in other nations rather than to ensure the common welfare of all Americans. Those discrepancies wasn't in the Americans before the takeover of this land happened, the people were like a family and worked together to achieve what they needed - with DID NOT include money.

       replyreport
17. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    My wife is a substitute teach and told me a story last night about the charismatic seventh grade history teacher standing front of the class and paraeducators yesterday expounding upon Trump comparisons to central American dictators ,  sounds like you were in her class huh ?
    
    At least you seem to believe this same socialist nonsense !

    replyreport
    1. 56

       The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       What history we know of the Americas' pre-European takeover of it reveals that isn't nonsense.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Ed Fisherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "What history we know of this America ..........." ?   What we do know is that early Americans carving a nation from the forests used a single shot blunderbuss  to expand their way though a eighth century culture of mound dwellers ,  stick eaters , isolated masses made up of warring native societies  that make today's Amazon cannibals look fairly tame , for one .   
          
          Second , that these same warring tribes  cajolled , stole , hijacked , burned , raped , broke treaties and slaughtered many civilian Americans doing that ,  If you're going to inject early American history into today's  political atmosphere , at least read more than one historical  journal .
          
          Let go of the pacifist bead trading, holistic peace tribes of children's cartoon  folklore and read up on the early American plains dwellers , farmers , ranchers and wagoneers of western migrating  hordes of mostly immigrants  who REALLY experienced terror at the hands of  our 'natives ".
          
          Socialism in the native American tribes ?  More like armageddon at the hands of  Genghis Khan .

          replyreport
          1. 56

             The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

             Where does one find that history of the pre-European America takeover you are presenting?

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Ed Fisherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                It's called reading history books , note the [s] many of them , not relying on one or two liberal history professors to fill you in for a quizz  .

                replyreport
                1. 56

                   The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                   That is why asked you where you found it, no History I've read indicates that except there is a mentioning of some many wars in the Books of Mormon concerning those who came over here. Those and supposed history based on archeological findings but I've found on supposedly Historical Record of them.

                   replyreport
18. 78

    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Winner takes all is great until life deals you a disaster or disability--or when you are a helpless baby.

    replyreport
19. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    Whatever Democrats HAVE become in recent times ,socialists , anarchists ,entitlementists , drama queens , I understand that  this year alone priests are getting record requests to perform exorcisms............there may be hope yet ........?

    replyreport
20. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    ... So, stop using the words, socialist or socialism. Come up with some better term  ...
    like, "Government Induced Capitalism."
    
    G.I.C.
    
    Democrats believe in G. I. C.
    
    If you don't stop referring to "democratic SOCIALISM," Sanders is sure to loose.
    
    So wait, whose side am I on?
    
    Okay to be clear, I am not for Sanders, but he has a shot if everybody insists on pulling for Trump.
    
    Could Sanders win against Trump?
    ... well, that could be a topic for another thread.
    
    PS I think so, Yes.

    replyreport
    1. 82

       peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Kathryn:  I think my reply has made you conflicted.  The adult thing that conservatives should do is  understand that we live in not only a capitalist economy, but that we also live in a socialist society. 
       
       That's what group insurance, medicare, social security, fighting forest fires, ambulance services, and many government agencies are all about. 
       
       Conservatives don't even realize that we are better served by these social  agencies and programs than privatizing those services.  Every time we come together as a group to help each other we are socializing.
       
       Obama care is social program that is really group insurance.  It has been re-framed to be evil by conservatives, by calling it death panels, and destroying our economy, but they can't replace it because it is a body of laws for the entire health complex.  it can't be replaced by  a 19 page insurance policy as conservatives would like you to think.

       replyreport
       1. 88

          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          " The adult thing that conservatives should do is  understand that we live in not only a capitalist economy, but that we also live in a socialist society.  "
          
          That sounds fair enough.  Can we also state that liberals need to understand that simply taking what others have built and have in order to "equalize" people is a losing proposition - that while it feels good in the short run the long term prognosis of massive wealth distribution is harmful to the point of destroying the society?
          
          "Obama care is social program that is really group insurance."
          
          This is a very good example, for ObamaCare is nothing of the kind.  It is about requiring the "haves" of society to support the "have nots" without making any effort to improve the ability, and incentive, of the "have nots" to support themselves.  It is simply taking from one to give to another, and it is destructive in the long term.

          replyreport
          1. 82

             peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

             Wilderness: Group insurance is based on those who are in good health paying premiums into the system to support those who are not well and need care?  That is what Obama Care does and without that, the pre-existing feature wouldn't work. 
             
             It has nothing to do with haves and have nots.  If you are in the working class and are healthy and have group insurance, then you are going to pay into the program for those who need care and are not as healthy as you are.
             
             By the same token, if you are wealthy person and need catastrophic care, then the healthy people in the group are going to be paying for your care, because they don't need the insurance as much as you do.  It has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth.
             
             By the way, the distinction between liberal and conservative is not a monolithic category.  I'm liberal in my moral values, but I'm conservative in my fiscal responsibilities.  Unlike Trump who is both morally and fiscally irresponsible.

             replyreport
             1. 88

                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                No.  That is NOT what insurance does or is for. 
                
                It is perhaps easier to look at automobile insurance, but the principles are the same.  High risk drivers, as defined by the statistical probability of having an accident based on history, age and other factors, pay more for insurance.  The "rewards" for buying insurance is that, in the case of an accident, the insured does not face a catastrophic financial disaster.  Instead, those that have NOT had that statistical accident help pay for the costs through their premiums, and of course those premiums include a profit for the insurer.  If it was merely a matter of paying for all accidents we would all pay the same regardless of any other factors, but we do not.
                
                In the case of ObamaCare not only do we have insured that pay nothing for the privilege of having that insurance, the premium costs are shifted from those likely to need health care to those that are not nearly as likely.  It is why the requirement for young, healthy people was so obnoxious; their premiums were far out of line with the statistical probability of needing it in order to lower premiums for those that have a much higher probability of needing care.  In that way, the law required them to subsidize older people for no more reason that they are unlikely to need health care.
                
                It is not "insurance" in the accepted norm at all, but a blatant effort to shift costs from one person to another.
                
                I don't find it "morally responsible" to rob peter to pay paul; the morality of playing Robin Hood is far down the ladder, not the top rung.

                replyreport
                1. 82

                   peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   Wilderness:  You are saying the same thing I said.  Healthy people are less risk to the insurance companies than those with illnesses.  With insurance companies, it is all about the risk to rewards ratio, even with Obama care.  That's why young people pay more into the program.  Just like insurance for young drivers cost more than insurance for middle age drivers because they are in a higher risk category. Old drivers are also high risk, therefore their premiums are higher.
                   
                   You can call it shifting cost from one person to another, but that is how it works.  The GOP has tried countless times to replace Obama care but they can't do it with a 19 page insurance policy.  It is a body of laws that governs the entire health care industry.  That is why it is over 2,000 pages long.  Its key feature is pre-existing conditions.  The only reason that works is because younger people who don't have pre-existing conditions are paying for those who do.
                   
                   Trump says he will not remove pre-existing conditions, but he doesn't have a clue how Obama care works.  That is what the individual mandate was for. Obama's goal was to have a single payer system, but the GOP shot it down.  You can thank your fellow conservatives for that, including all the GOP state governors who opted out of the program.

                   replyreport
                   1. 88

                      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      You missed (or glossed over) the entire point.  As a group, people pay for insurance at the same rate they use it (plus a profit).  AS A GROUP.
                      
                      When one group (young healthy people) are charged more to reduce costs to another group (older, not so health people) it is no longer "insurance" it is "wealth redistribution".  Statistical tables rule, always...except when politicians decide that one person must pay for another.  Consider; do you pay car insurance at the same premium rates as a 18 year old male living in NYC, owning a Ferrari and having a history of 2 crashes per year?  That's what ObamaCare does to young healthy people.
                      
                      And no - ObamaCare does not "work".  It's primary effect is to pad the pockets of insurance companies; it doesn't provide any care at all, and in fact removes the possibility of care from the poorer people.

                      replyreport
                      1. 82

                         peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Wilderness:  O.K.  Then let's just repeal Obama care and privatize health insurance, with no ceiling on premiums, no pre-existing condition coverage and we will pay for the uninsured that will go in for emergency care because they can't afford the high premiums.  Let's just deregulate the entire health care industry.  Let's see how that stops the distribution of wealth. 
                         
                         You think the insurance companies are exploiting health care now, just wait until it is completely privatized and deregulated if you want to see a transfer of wealth. The problem is, it will be the transfer from the middle class to corporations and the "poorer people" will get nothing in the way of health care as you say they do now.

                         replyreport
                         1. 88

                            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            I understand that you are massively concerned that redistribution not only continue, but grow to the maximum amount possible.
                            
                            I understand that you find it extremely important that no one, regardless of their contribution, be "poor" (as defined by you, and re-defined yearly), and that they be given what others earned.
                            
                            But that has nothing to do with understanding what ObamaCare is, how it works, and what the results are.  It has nothing to do with accepting that ObamaCare is not insurance at all, but just another method of redistributing the wealth of the nation to those that did not earn it.  Pretending that ObamaCare is another insurance program, just like all the others in the country, will not fix what is wrong, will not make it into health insurance and will not provide care for anyone at all.
                            
                            So if you demand that health care be made available, at no cost, to all Americans then do so.  But quit trying to make ObamaCare into an insurance program that will provide that care for all.

                            replyreport
                            1. 82

                               peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               Wllderness: So you say Obama care is not a health insurance program. Tell all that to my 81 year old brother-in-law who had two hip replacements and two knee replacements that cost tens of thousands of dollars and he didn't pay a dime. Tell that to my nephew who had massive work done on his spine and didn't pay a dime.  Tell me and my wife that because we don't pay anything for our medication.
                               
                               This forum is about socialism versus capitalism.  You are wrong about me wanting a massive re-distribution of wealth.  I believe I have stated in replies on this forum that the country works best when there is a balance of capitalism and socialism.
                               
                               I understand most conservatives are very territorial when it comes to guns, their property, and including their wealth.  They live in I've got mine now you get yours mentality. And re-frame socialism into the haves are paying for the have not's without earning their keep.   
                               
                               Obama care is not perfect, it needs fixing.  But you are wrong, it is an insurance program that is intended for all. If the GOP congress had not blocked the single payer feature it would have worked even better. 
                               
                               Remember, Obama care is a spin-off from a conservative republican's program.  His name is Mitt Romney.  Yes, I feel that health care should  be made, at a minimal cost to all, just like in most of the developed countries of the world.  But I'm not naive enough to think there is no cost.  Everything has a cost and the revenue has to come from someplace and that is our taxes. 
                               
                               If you think there is a better program, then why hasn't the GOP been able to come up with one?  Stop pretending Obama care isn't an insurance program.  Is it just because you don't like the word Obama?  Let's call it it the ACA, the Affordable Care Act.  That is its official name. 
                               
                               Until you and others, including the GOP can come up with a better plan, this is what it is and you are going to have to live with your notion that it is a giant wealth distribution program. Stop using it and medicare, and social security if you don't like it. 
                               
                               It is a program for older people to get better health care than if there was private insurance and they would not be able to pay for it.  That is the bottom line.  It is a group insurance program. If you want to call it a massive distribution of wealth, that is your problem.
                               
                               By the way, where is this massive transfer of wealth that you talk about?  How does it manifest itself?  Are the poor getting richer from it?  Does the middle class become more wealthy?  The fact is the transfer of wealth is from the middle class to the super rich, so that they can become richer. 
                               
                               "The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Wolff. That share is higher than it has been at any point since at least 1962, according to Wolff's data, which comes from the federal Survey of Consumer Finances."  So you my friend are barking up the wrong tree.

                               replyreport
                               1. 88

                                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                  "Wllderness: So you say Obama care is not a health insurance program. Tell all that to my 81 year old brother-in-law who had two hip replacements and two knee replacements that cost tens of thousands of dollars and he didn't pay a dime. Tell that to my nephew who had massive work done on his spine and didn't pay a dime.  Tell me and my wife that because we don't pay anything for our medication."
                                  
                                  LOL  You make a very good case for it being wealth redistribution rather than insurance.  I know people in section 8 housing that don't pay for what they get, either - does that make that program an insurance as well?  How about those on food stamps, or medicaid?  Is Medicaid an insurance program simply because it pays for health care?
                                  
                                  "I believe I have stated in replies on this forum that the country works best when there is a balance of capitalism and socialism."
                                  
                                  Agreed.  But your concept of "balance" is a massive redistribution of wealth.  Of course, "massive" is relative, and it is relative to what I see as reasonable, as I am making the comment.  You will disagree, of course.
                                  
                                  "Everything has a cost and the revenue has to come from someplace and that is our taxes. "
                                  
                                  On this we agree, but again it comes down to "soak the rich and give to the poor".  Wealth redistribution, once more - giving it another name, even a name used for a specific product - does not mean that people are paying for the value what they receive from ObamaCare.
                                  
                                  "If you think there is a better program, then why hasn't the GOP been able to come up with one?"
                                  
                                  Why are you asking me why a pack of bi-partisan politicians hasn't come up with something you like?  That's foolish beyond belief.
                                  
                                  "Stop pretending Obama care isn't an insurance program.  Is it just because you don't like the word Obama?"
                                  
                                  It is because no true insurance program serves primarily as a conduit to give things away.  Insurance premiums are based on statistical loss calculations; ObamaCare is based on providing "insurance" to everyone.
                                  
                                  "Stop using it and medicare, and social security if you don't like it.  "
                                  
                                  Odd how liberals seem to inevitably go back to insinuating that medicare and SS, programs paid for by the individuals receiving benefits over a lifetime of contributions, is the same as the entitlement programs where the recipient has contributed nothing whatsoever.  Like ObamaCare, where it is free if you're poor.
                                  
                                  "It is a program for older people to get better health care than if there was private insurance and they would not be able to pay for it.  That is the bottom line."
                                  
                                  Thank you.  The key here, as I keep stating, is in that little phrase I bolded for you; they can't afford it so the money must come from someone else.  It's called wealth redistribution, not insurance.  Now all you need to do is remember that you said it, not me, and think about it every time you try to claim that the ACA is really insurance, not just another entitlement program.  Someone else picks up the true cost of the program, not the recipient.

                                  replyreport
                         2. 84

                            My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            The transfer of wealth is already from the poor to the rich.  That is provable. To see how, I wrote a couple of hubs on it.
                            
                            What Wilderness accepts as OK is the 1) the wealthy's ability to use the laws of this nation to exploit the rest for their gain beyond what their own contribution warrants and 2) not paying their fair share for the privilege to do that.
                            
                            If I were king for the day I would:
                            
                            1. Tax all money inheritance at regular rates
                            2. Defer all property inheritance until converted to money which would be taxed at normal rates
                            3. Do away with short-term capital gains and limit long-term capital gains to five years or more.
                            4. Do away with "carried interest" deductions
                            5. Tax all dividends at regular rates
                            6.  Allow deduction of interest in normal savings accounts
                            7.  Tax incomes (AGI) over $100,000,000 at 60%
                            8.  Tax incomes over $10,000,000 at 50%
                            9.  Tax incomes over $1,000,000 at 40%
                            10. Tax incomes over $500,000 at 35%
                            11.  Tax incomes over $100,000 at 30%
                            12. Tax incomes over $50,000 at 25%
                            13. No tax for incomes under $50,000

                            replyreport
                      2. 83

                         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Wilderness is CORRECT AGAIN as usual!
                         
                         

                         replyreport
21. 82

    peoplepower73posted 5 years ago

    Wilderness:  So you call that a redistribution of wealth?  When in fact the real redistribution of wealth is from the working class to the super rich.  It's interesting that you didn't comment on this at all.
    
    "The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Wolff. That share is higher than it has been at any point since at least 1962, according to Wolff's data, which comes from the federal Survey of Consumer Finances."  So you my friend are barking up the wrong tree.
    
    So then according to your definition, any group insurance plan is a redistribution of wealth. Because money comes from those that don't need the care to those that do because they wouldn't be able to pay for it otherwise.
    
    And it works out that the premiums are lower for everybody in the group And you think that is a bad thing because it is an entitlement program where someone else picks up the cost of the program, not the recipient.  Funny, I believe that is how all insurance programs work.  Therefore by your logic, all insurance programs are entitlement programs...right?

    replyreport
    1. 84

       My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Peoplepower - you will never convince a social Darwinist like Wilderness that the weak (metaphorically speaking) have a right to live as well.  He doesn't actually believe in the inalienable natural rights to Life, health, Liberty, Property (Locke) or Life, Liberty, Property (Jefferson).

       replyreport
       1. 88

          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          As always, the final word (because I won't respond to this crap again) is that others willing to live in reality hate people and wish they were dead. 
          
          I WILL mention, though, that the inalienable right to life or liberty that a person on death row maintains is quite the fiction!  Same for the property being foreclosed on or taken for a new road.

          replyreport
          1. 82

             peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

             Wilderness:  Wealth is a relative term.  It means different things to different people.  Your use of the term for the transfer of wealth is that anybody who pays for somebody else is a transfer of wealth.  In your sense of the term, if I bought you lunch, I have transferred part of my wealth to you. Wealth to a poor person is just having money.  Wealth to me is the super rich.
             
             All social programs transfer wealth.  If you had a forest fire where you lived and fire fighters from my state came to help put out your fire, I paid in part for that service, but you are the recipient of that action, not me. Because I paid my taxes that allowed that to happen.  You are part of that entitlement. If you get a flu shot because the CDC says you need one.  We all paid our taxes to allow the CDC to do the research to see if you need a flu shot.  Therefore all social services are entitlements by your definition and they all cause a transfer of wealth by your definition.

             replyreport
             1. 84

                My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                People, I am getting the feeling that Wilderness may be hating himself for accepting assistance from the rest of America, as you partially described, given his hatred of helping people who need help. 
                
                He receives public assistance in so many ways, that it must be frightening.

                replyreport
          2. 84

             My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             I see you still don't get it Wilderness.

             replyreport
    2. 88

       wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       I give.  As long as you insist that premiums paid for by the tax base or by someone else is not wealth distribution but instead a normal insurance, just like auto or any other insurance program, I can't help you.
       
       When you sit back and quit trying to make it an insurance program because people need help paying their premiums, or because you like free insurance, THEN come back and we can discuss whether free premiums are actually insurance or wealth distribution.

       replyreport
22. 0

    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    Speaking of Democratic Socialists...
    

    replyreport