Are You a A. Lefter?

1. 86

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   B. Progressive
   C. Democrat
   D. Liberal
   E. None of the above.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      None of the above. Labels are restrictive. Labels are a form of reductionism.  Labels don’t allow for  complexity. Labels create an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dynamic. Especially when used by politicians to win support from people who agree with those labels without any real, critical thought. It’s often a case of pitting conservatives versus liberals and the language used to describe the other is filled with disdain and even hate.
      It prevents us from seeing the human behind the label. Which is probably exactly the intention. Labels also  give a false sense of superiority along with a sort of permission to treat those you've "othered" poorly.  Something I see on this forum often.  I find it a little comical though when folks get mad at others who won't apply a label to themselves.

      replyreport
      1. 100

         DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Great attitude. The problem you are describing is on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. I have seen numerous posts from Esoteric telling us about the choices on "your side", which makes it sound like we are all enemies.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No worse than a few who tell us daily that the Democratic Party is ruining America, while ignoring half the factors that have led to some of the issues they complain about.

            replyreport
            1. 100

               DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Totally agree, No worse, and no better. I havent seen them ignoring the issues though.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Let's take inflation for an example.  The only person one party blames for inflation is Biden.
                  
                  Certainly some of his decisions have led to an increase, but record profits for corporations also contribute.  Supply chain issues that have lingered from a pandemic recovery on a global scale contribute.  A war between two countries contributes.  An April 2020 cut to global oil production of 20% contributes.
                  
                  That is an obvious example of ignoring the causation of one of the prime issues that there are so many complaints about, and partisan blame.

                  replyreport
      2. 86

         Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         As Dr Mark indicates, good points; especially when applied to American politics.  I have a more liberal attitude in the use of political labels because in British politics the 'us and them' attitude is less pronounced and there is generally a lot of respect and co-operation between the opposing political parties, which helps to make cross-party committees in Parliament very effective.  https://youtu.be/cTtP39bLYBg
         
         Of course, there are always exceptions to this, especially when it comes to the animosity of Scotland towards England, as shown in this short (and entertaining) video clip: https://youtu.be/wSN7b7MbxPE

         replyreport
      3. 84

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Au contraire mon ami. I think labels are good, useful, and helpful communication tools. They are a type of shorthand that both speeds and facilitates understanding. It is laziness and misuse that does all the things you mention, not the label.*
         
         *Of course, there are exceptions, but they are usually purposeful applications.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yep

            replyreport
      4. 83

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Faye Faye Faye ----
         " Labels also  give a false sense of superiority along with a sort of permission to treat those you've "othered" poorly.  Something I see on this forum often.  I find it a little comical though when folks get mad at others who won't apply a label to themselves."
         
         Did you not call people in your state Hillbillies?   Please, come visit, and spend more time in backwoods hillbilly locale's. "
         
         Most here are more than willing to share their political leaning.
         or share their ideologies. There is a clear them versus us here on this forum, in my view. My gosh at times users go too far and get banned, for being overly personal.  I have certainly overstepped my bounds.
         
            Have you noted anyone that who posts here frequently is not willing to share their political leanings?   I see your point about a sense of superiority, Is it not normal to support one's thoughts and political preference? 
         
         I think it is very normal to have disagreements on opinions, this is a Political forum.   It is more than apparent on this forum users have diverse views. I think you may just not want to hear them.
         
         I do see you feel uncomfortable with labeling.  I will back away from your comments when I feel the urge to disagree or use labeling.
         
         Sorry for pointing out that I felt you have characteristics of a liberal

         replyreport
   2. 75

      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I am not a purist of any of those choices, though do appreciate 'some' of the 'advertised' intentions. That is the same with the several types of conservatism as well. In other words I like to eat meat and veggies both as they both are beneficial to me. And, I don't like all meats nor all veggies.
      
      Today, I am registered in Calif as an 'independent' or 'no party preference', which in 2020 was the second largest voting block in the state.
      
      Recently I have been studying about Libertarianism, yet there is a left and right faction within it, though they are united under one umbrella on basic principles from what I understand.
      
      I think what is happening in a state has more significance today than in the past. For how voters stack up in California is the article below, which does touch on 'independent voters' history.
      
      California Voter and Party Profiles by Public Policy Institute of California August 2022.
      https://www.ppic.org/publication/califo … -profiles/

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I will jump off subject for a moment. Please ignore if you think my question is inappropriate. You have shared on the occasion that you have leanings toward being independent.
         
         So, do you vote when dissatisfied with state candidates as well as Presidential candidates or sit it out? 
         
         Just curious.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            To be honest a little history first. I first voted 1972 as a registered Republican voting the party and did so until 2016. I was politically active protesting the Vietnam war, protesting against abortion, but it began with protesting that girls were not allowed to wear corduroy pants and only pant suits in high school at my girl friend's high school in another town. I had to run an extra five miles at track practice because of that. I guess you can say I was an outside influence of sorts.
            
            It was not until 2015 that I gave attention to politics at all. I just voted Republican. When it came to initiatives, propositions, and such in the state I just flipped a coin. The same with local stuff. Easy, Peasy.
            
            Of course since basically my forty year career I worked 10 - 12 hour days six days a week I did not have time for getting into politics, governing, or history in any depth. It was much more valuable to invest my time keeping up with the automotive field and seeking ways and means to increase my value to the corporation I worked for resulting with a higher revenue for us both as well as contributing to its growth. In other words ROI. One could surmise those are in essence conservative principles. The rest of my time was doing domestic chores and sleeping. I like to sleep.
            
            But, it was 2012 that I switched to independent a result of cognitive dissonance that gnawed at me. That was the majority of the corporate leadership that I respected and was honored to serve suddenly using the 'N' word with political conversations. They were conservatives/Republicans. Though was a silent protest of sorts, it brought to me a psychological relief again a result of cognitive dissonance.
            
            Frankly, I lean more conservative, yet like I said I like meat and veggies both. 2013 I left work life. About 2014 I asked my self why do I believe what I believe? It has been an arduous journey since.
            
            It is much tougher beginning the 2016 election cycle for me because I give thought to my vote these days. Probably too much. I consider my stance on issues and look to see how candidates measure up to that weighing what is offered on the internet for research. For instance I have a concern about climate change. How to prioritize can be difficult too.
            
            For what is available I begin with the link below then search for websites hopefully with additional information. I am sure something like that is available in other states too. I dun'no . . . I don't really pay attention to TV adverts.
            
            Tuesday November 8, 2022 — California General Election
            Ballot and voting information for San Diego County provided by Voter's Edge. You can refine it down to your address and zip code.
            http://votersedge.org/ca/en/section/202 … y/overview
            
            For my address, zip code
            http://votersedge.org/ca/en/ballot/elec … 2022-11-08
            
            So, to answer your question, "So, do you vote when dissatisfied with state candidates as well as Presidential candidates or sit it out?" I vote no matter what even if it is a write in if is an option, though I know not voting is a vote in and of itself. I may as you said pinch my nose. My handy coin is always available too, though I may wind up doing two out of three.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I so appreciate you sharing. I can see you have made your way through many of life's hurdles to come to where you are today.
               
               Much respect for your journey, and I must say, I am glad to hear you don't just sit it out.  Your attitude gives me hope.

               replyreport
   3. 77

      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What is a Lefter?  Someone left-handed?

      replyreport
      1. 84

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         It's like Tom Cruise, as in one who left. A Lefter. Or like, you used to be a liberal, but then wised up and left them. You became a Lefter.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I my college days, it would have been the guy with a slight curve in an anatomical part that should go unmentioned.

            replyreport
   4. 83

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      None of the above. I am a Republican.

      replyreport
   5. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I am a discerning Liberal.   While I believe in some liberal causes, I don't believe in some of the social/welfare programs which kill human initiative & cause entitlement & laziness.  Because of the social/welfare programs implemented, people have gotten lazy & entitled.   Also there is GENERATIONAL welfare which is beyond ridiculous.    I also refuse to believe in victimhood.   No one is a victim unless h/she wants to be.
      
      I am a staunch believer in tough love.  If one refuses to better oneself, let him/her be penurious & starve to death for all I care.   I am sick of able-bodied intelligent adults wanting other people to carry them.  I believe that in the strongest whether intellectually or financially surviving.  Those who aren't in the game should face the consequences of their inaction.   
      
      The government isn't here to give handouts.  The government should merely be a law enforcement & have checks & balances.  The middle class should be taxed inordinately to support the irresponsibility of the poor.  I am staunchly for the middle classes, never the poor who are poor because of their unintelligent decisions.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I strongly believe in a fair society, which you obviously don't.  And FYI I am 'middle class', I own my own home, have my own source of income and wealth with I worked for and earned throughout my working life; so that I can enjoy the fruits of my labour during my retirement:  But I had no gripes about paying my taxes to support those less fortunate than me in society - because I care.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I meant the middle class shouldn't be taxed inordinately to support the irresponsibility of the poor.  Typing while sleepy yet again.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think the middle class are taxed inordinately.  And as I said above, I had no gripes paying my taxes to support those less fortunate than me in society, and my income after tax gave me a comfortable living, so why should I begrudge paying taxes to help support those in need?
            
            As I said, I believe in a fair society, and I care.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I've always believed that taxpayers should have a small category of their tax bill that is discretionary - i.e., they get to choose where they want the funding to go.  Maybe only 10% or so, but that would allow them to be a little more supportive of how the tax dollars get spent because they have a say.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Remove all (ALL) the pork from the budget.  Then ask, on each 1040 form if the taxpayer would like to add something for any of these (list of all pork) possibilities.
                  
                  Alternatively, and more in line with your suggestion, require that the taxpayer add 10% to their tax bill, choosing among those same pork projects.

                  replyreport
                  1. 100

                     DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Of course that would require people to agree on what is pork though. I think that is the problem, as some people think that paying for entertainment venues is not pork but just a way to keep a nation free.

                     replyreport
               2. 86

                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  A very admirable thought, but in practice not practical e.g. many (but not all) Brits object to taxpayer’s money being used for our nuclear defence; using your methodology we wouldn’t have an effective nuclear defence.
                  
                  A more practical way is to either vote for the political parties that best represent your spending plans and or campaign for where the Government does/does not spend money e.g. lobbying Parliament, public awareness campaigns and pressure groups etc.

                  replyreport
2. 69

   IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

   You forgot Q.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Lol, yes. Q seems to be surging in popularity since receiving a nod from Mr Trump.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Im sure there are more than a couple here.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I'm thinking about checking them out. I saw a rabbit in a dream and it said Q was real.
            
            GA

            replyreport
3. 86

   Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

   None of the Above:  I am a Socialist.

   replyreport
4. 82

   Credence2posted 2 years ago

   Sorry to break this up, but I disagree with the nondescriptism direction this thread is taking.
   
   Adversaries, those that are extreme anti-choice or those that desire the dismantling of American democracy, of course, want to amalgamate amongst us as just "part of the crowd" with just a differing opinion.They do their dirty work surreptitiously and gradually as they do not want to unduly alarm you, so they employ the tadpole in the boiling pot approach.
   
   Being so lulled into complacency in the face of real and unprecedented threats to our way of life is nothing to find virtuous in any fashion. Being wishy-washy about identifying these forces and those that subscribe to them is not going to help in the long term.
   
   Blake Edwards, the GOP candidate for Senate, about as misogynistic and racist a Trumper as they get, is toning down his rhetoric over fear of alarming voters. He does not want to be identified for what he actually is and make too many of you uncomfortable. But just because he temporarily dons a sheep outfit, does not change the fact that he is still a wolf when considering reasonableness and moderation. He may change the label, but whats in the jar is still nauseating brine.
   
   Many years ago, I visited the Kellogg's plant in Battle Creek Michigan. I was told "off of the cuff" that there were stringent federal regulations on how much extraneous matter (rat droppings and other unpleasant things) could be in a specific volume of corn flakes, and federal agents came out to test this more often than just occasionally. Kelloggs and I as a consumer knew that it was impossible to produce such a product without any impurities. Kelloggs also knew that screening for more impurities increased the costs associated with producing the product. They were concerned more with keeping the impurity levels just below that where customers could actually see the culprits in their cereal bowls, as that would not be good for business. But as we all know, what you don't see can, in fact, hurt you. So, the USDA inspection required a higher standard of purity than what would be more commercially convenient for Kelloggs. So, now when you pick up your next box of corn flakes, you will have a little background.
   
   Sorry to digress, but my point remains: a nondescript attitude is not going to save us.
   
   
   As for the identifiers at the start of this threat, I am most probably all of the above.....

   replyreport
   1. 84

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      grrrr, like fingernails on a chalkboard it is. You're killing me bud. It's a frog, not a tadpole, in that boiling water adage. A tadpole couldn't get out of the water if it wanted to, a frog can, so your 'saying' fails to carry your message. (whatever it was).
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Ok, so sue me....
         
         You're nit picking again, you ought to have that checked..

         replyreport
         1. 84

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I did check. It turns out to be the same angst generated by speakers that say 'you know' at the start or end of a statement. Repeatedly. A 60-second explanation might contain 6 or 7 of them. You know?
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 61

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What if there were no parties? As the founders warned against?
      Politicians today seem to spend most of their time stoking tribal passions.
      They've learned that nothing mobilizes Americans more than invoking the evil of the other party.
      
      Political prejudice has become our country's most accepted form of bigotry.
      
      It promotes a herd mentality and is dumbing us down as a nation.  What people see is not a candidate, or a set of policy proposals, but a party affiliation (Republican vs. Democrat), a political label (conservative vs. liberal), a symbolic color (red vs. blue). 
      
      Without the convenient labels and stereotypes to rely on,  would voters be forced to assess their ballots without bias?  With more thought of the content?
      My guess is that we would wind up more focused on policy.
      Politicians are actually supposed to be advocates for particular policy remedies, not tribal representatives.
      
      Elections should be a contest of ideas. In  my fantasy world free of labels, candidates would be forced to appeal more to common sense and problem solving than tribal prejudice and partisan attacks.
      But individuals still have the power to reject binary thinking although many seem to be increasingly entrenched.
      Studies do show us that people get along better in multi-party, proportional democracies. 
      
      https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh … democracy/

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Like I tell conservatives all the time Faye, it ain't 1776. These learned men as impressive as they were could not foresee the changes to come in their nascent society. There are political parties everywhere. Even though Arthur, lives in Britain under a parliamentary system, there are still political parties. The are not just labels, but represent a series of shared attitudes and values among their respective adherents.
         
         Politicians are just stoking fires that have always been burning among people with ever more starkly differing views as to how things should be done.
         
         Not the evil of the party more than the evils of the perspectives embraced by that group of individuals who identify themselves as a party.
         
         Yes, I vote party because party represent attitudes, ideological and platform policy stances. I have a preference between one set of that verses the other. The candidate by associating him or herself with that the party I have aversion to, has defined him or herself to me before we even start. The candidate, by affiliating with one party or the other, is telling me who he or she is.
         
         It is just a fact of life that political, economic and social divisions exist within the America populace, it doesn't disappear in a search for the perfect blend.
         
         Varying ideas are represented by varied political parties, for that reason I would welcome more than two political parties here. Everyone has their own biases anyway and differing ideas going into the voting booth. Parties just organizes people of similar ideas and values into a coherent force.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I like this. Good post, good explanation.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I agree.  A good post and a good explanation.
               
               The only problem I have with it is that we are voting party politics rather than an individuals, and the party will always act as it thinks best for the party.  Neither people nor country takes priority over good for the party, and that is all too often not in the best interests of "we the people".

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Not so.
                  
                  The issue is who is it that "we the people" mean for that Party.
                  
                  Democratic Party has certainly warped into the party of International Comradery and Collectivism.
                  
                  So "we the people" for the Democratic Party means supporting the Global Compact on Migration (open borders) for example.
                  
                  The Democratic Party does not believe "we the people" constitutes those who are unborn. 
                  
                  This is hard for some people who are moderate and believe in abortion, up to a point, to be acceptable... they cannot get behind abortion past a certain week.
                  
                  While Republicans want to limit abortions, minimize the weeks to which an abortion is allowed, so one could say "we the people" means unborn children to the Republican party.
                  
                  Some of the old stigma's are outdated, like, Republicans are for the Rich, the Bankers and Businessmen... as today both parties cater to those with money while giving lip service to the common American.
                  
                  Ultimately the two party system doesn't work very well anymore.  Its like a choice between getting your nose broken, or getting it cut off. 
                  
                  Either way, you aren't terribly happy with the outcome, and not better off.
                  
                  Seriously, how many years have Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell and Biden been in DC controlling things?
                  
                  What difference does it make, when the power brokers in DC remain there for decades?

                  replyreport
            2. 82

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Why, thank you for that observation, Ken.

               replyreport
            3. 83

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Ken --- me too!  I will be borrowing a bit.

               replyreport
         2. 83

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            All your passionate fluff, although all very much got my attention, and make me think... This line was born.
            
            "Not the evil of the party more than the evils of the perspectives embraced by that group of individuals who identify themselves as a party."
            
            OMG --- I am so going to use this one... Cred, I So agree

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I guess I used it for emphasis.

               replyreport
5. 86

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   cv-ed from elsewhere:
   
   "To isolate the main difficulty of our current political debates, you have two types of political beliefs which lead in opposite directions:
   
   1.) Those who believe in operating according to obedience to some sort of political system. 
   
   2.) Those who believe in operating according to one's own will, (which is the freedom to choose and guide one's own course and direction in life.)
   
   Now, obedience to a SYSTEM takes away freedom of choice.
   For instance,
   Political party: One.
   Freedom of speech: No.
   Free Market: Limited, if any.
   Self-chosen employment: Government managed labor camps.
   _________________________________________________
   
   Democratic republics, however, allow individual freedom.
   Yes, in theory, you might have equality of outcome through obedience to a system, but with a Democracy, (within boundaries provided by a Constitution designed to provide justice and liberty,) you have equality in opportunity.
   
   For instance,
   Freedom in the market place: Yes.
   Freedom of speech: Yes.
   Self-chosen employment: Yes.
   
   Opportunity is more important than outcome. Why be concerned with outcome for All, through a governmental system, (which will necessarily be a totalitarian regime of some type,) when you can have opportunity for all through freedom within boundaries?" KLH

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Picking up on some of your points:
      
      Where you say (to quote):
      
      “1.) Those who believe in operating according to obedience to some sort of political system.
      
      2.) Those who believe in operating according to one's own will, (which is the freedom to choose and guide one's own course and direction in life.)”
      
      •    The first is democracy if it includes ‘free’ and ‘fair’ elections.
      •    The second is anarchy.
      
      Obedience to a system doesn’t take away freedom of choice in a free and democratic country; and neither does it take away ‘freedom of speech’ in a free and democratic country; nor the free market, even when Labour (Socialist) government is in power in Britain we still have free markets; and likewise, even when we have a socialist government in power in Britain it’s your choice whether you want to work for the government or a private company – I think your understanding of socialism in a free and democratic country is limited!
      
      Your last paragraph, where you say that a governmental system equates to a totalitarian regime seems muddled?  And certainly, we should be concerned with the outcome for ‘All’, not to be in the ‘free for all system’ that you want advocates ‘survival of the fittest’, an ideology that I do not support e.g. it leaves the poor, the old and the infirm to rot while the rest of society don’t care!
      
      I think what you are trying to advocate is a ‘laissez-faire’ government, which is what the USA largely is anyway.

      replyreport
6. 86

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   We do need to see, comprehend and identify who the enemy of our Democratic Republic truly is. And what they want from US!!!!!

   replyreport
7. 86

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   Okay, okay! I meant Leftist.
   Who wants to identify with that term, though?
   It seemed rude.
   
   Q. Are you a Leftist?
   
   Who would admit it?

   replyreport
8. 86

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   Would they (Leftists) rather identify with being Socialist, as Nathanville did?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Because we lefties in America are not socialist but capitalists, as long as it is maintained on a tight leash.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         a tight leash ...
         
         is that what you call it?
         and thats FINE?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            ... you mean tight leash for $Some.
            ... surely.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I don't recall making any sort of distinction in your regard to "some".

               replyreport
         2. 82

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, it will more than do.

            replyreport
      2. 77

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, because too many times, unchecked corporations will choose profits over doing the right thing, protecting the area where there business is located, or those that use their product.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly, Valeant, that is where I am coming from.

            replyreport
         2. 86

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, well put

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Is that not what governments, particularly socialist ones, do?  Protect their own at the top, while stamping on everyone else?

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Not at all:  If you look at all the 'balances and checks' that have been introduced by Socialist Governments (Labour) over the decades e.g. the Electoral Commission, Ofcom etc., and by Socialist Governments in the UK making 'key' Government Departments, like the ONS (Office of National Statistics), independent of Government to prevent misuse by unscrupulous governments, then you'd know that (at least for countries like Britain) that your statement is untrue.

                  replyreport
      3. 76

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         How did the Kings of Charity become capitalists?  That is not normally a function of capitalism, but it surely is of socialism.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Socialism as an economic system is defined as one Where the major means of production is owned by the state.  Is that true in America? I don't recall advocating for that.

            replyreport
9. 86

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   "Kings of Charity" Lol!

   replyreport
10. 86

    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    ... nice and polite and willingly obedient. That's the attitude that brings about THEIR authority over YOU!

    replyreport
11. 86

    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    ... see how hard the leftists are coming down on Trump and DeSantis?
    See how the Leftists will not be able to squish them no matter how hard they try.
    No more Mr. Nice Guy!
    Sadly this will bring about a great divide.
    
    Those who want to think for themselves and have the freedom to guide their own wills and lives.
    
    Versus
    
    Those who think some system of government should be adhered to for the great benefits promised .... Via your hard earned money.
    
    ____________________________________________
    
    
    What is there to not get?
    We don't have a "laissez-faire government!"
    
    It was never that. Our government / The Constitution of the United States / was designed to provide laws and boundaries and to protect the rule of law and security from threats.
    
    Not providing handouts.
    Not controlling education.
    Not regulating the Free Market.
    Not dictating social morays.
    Not mandating the States' issues.
    Not charging the States for services only the states should control.
    Not dissolving borders.
    Not providing money to foreign governments and THEIR wars or research.
    Not providing nationwide license to kill the unborn.
    Not emptying the country's coffers and oil reserves.
    Not mandating individual health issues.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

       I don't care if it's left right or anywhere in between, Governor Ron DeSantis did those folks wrong.  You don't use human beings to make political points.

       replyreport
       1. 86

          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          off topic.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

             "see how hard the leftists are coming down on Trump and DeSantis?
             See how the Leftists will not be able to squish them no matter how hard they try."
             
             Your statement.

             replyreport
             1. 86

                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                ... not my topic as far as the detail you mentioned.
                
                My topic is this:
                "Those who want to think for themselves and have the freedom to guide their own wills and lives."

                replyreport
12. 86

    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    laissez-faire:
    "a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering.
    'a laissez-faire attitude to life'
    
    ECONOMICS
    abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.
    "laissez-faire capitalism"

    replyreport