Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm sorry, but this is insane, Tucker Carlson-esque hyperbole. None of them are arguing for dictatorship and you know it. Bernie, Warren, AOC, et.al. are arguing for government modeled much closer to the Scandinavian countries.
No. They call themselves democratic socialists, not social democrats. I think we all know the difference. I've spent untold hours on this site telling people the difference. The people themselves will tell you the difference.
We'll have to agree to disagree. None of the folks I named are in favor of dictatorship or are arguing for any policies that support it. You're free to come up with any link that provides a direct statement to the contrary, but I'm entirely certain you can't.
I'm entirely certain that glowing admiration for Fidel Castro's policies, along with a fervent love of the Sandinistas in the eighties, puts me a lot -- and I mean -- a lot closer than you think I would be. But we can agree to disagree. He's not a social democrat by any stretch. He's a democratic socialist, and the two are radically different.
Way to drop the knowledge!
into office until one day they're really going to find out that "social democrats" was intended to fool them this entire time and then the real masks will come off. Might even happen in their lifetime, but it will happen.
Oh, Blade, Social Democrats are fine. They're in Europe and they believe in private enterprise, only they believe in more of a transfer or wealth than we're used to in the states. AOC and Bernie call themselves democratic socialists, which is a huge difference from a party like the Social Democrats in Europen, even. Democratic socialists call for the public ownership of companies, and believe in publicly set wages and prices. There's no markets in democratic socialism, unlike in Europe under the social democrats. Huge difference.Way to drop the knowledge!
These guys are going to vote enough of these "social democrats"
Unfortunately, we've had the entirety of the 20th century as an example of what these "social democrats" really mean. Also, unfortunately, they never seem to learn from history.
Yeah, I know. I was being sarcastic in using "social democrats" because that's what they think Bernie, Warren, AOC (and many more are). My point being is that they've convinced guys like Rich that they're "Social Democrats" which is, of course, absurd.
Their program generally is a social democratic platform, but that's because of the reality of the situation. They quite consciously declare themselves democratic socialists, so we know what they would do if they had their druthers. People like AOC and Bernie think you can keep freedom along with socialism and the abolition of private property; I've yet to see it work on a large scale almost everywhere that has taken nationalizing industries heretofore not nationalized and doing so (excluding health care).
Yep!
Stop. Show me one quote; just one, where Bernie has advocated for the abolition of private property. Do you seriously think he's advocating for government ownership of everything?
Yes. The problem with Socialists/Marxists/Communists is they can't be trusted. EVER. They're all kissing cousins. They'll tell you what you want to hear to gain power, but once that power is achieved then the masks come off. Again, just look at the entirety of the 20th century for proof to see how all of that stuff works out. Probably 100+ million bodies and counting.
Yet you think the Republicans are the problem. A 3 seat majority in house and a tie breaker in senate and they are gonna fundamentally change the rules of America. kOOky
We are. Biden is going authoritarian.HellToupee said:
I feel the same way
But you see thats OK as long as it is dictating what some people want. Then it's totally cool
You mean use the rules laid out in the Constitution to appeal the election? Following what is written in the Constitution is your high water mark? Guess that makes sense why you're fine with everything that's happened since.
Um, while I don't support Biden saying it, I could absolutely see Trump saying something like this. I believe he literally said he would override governors if they didn't re-open places of worship last summer.
No (and I'll refrain from commenting on the hyperbolic gloss on your question).
Seriously?No (and I'll refrain from commenting on the hyperbolic gloss on your question).
Trump saying something as dumb as Biden regarding "overriding governors" is something I can absolutely imagine him doing. Because, you know, he did it.
First, I'm well aware of the Constitution and the Amendments made thereto as well as the lengthy and complicated progenies of constitutional issues as dealt with by SCOTUS. Second, I think you're missing my point - which is that, in the context of your post saying "imagine Trump saying this," I can imagine Trump saying pretty much anything stupid or myopic such as the suggestion that he has the power to override governors. Put differently, about the only things I can't imagine him saying are "I lost the 2020 election fair and square" and "please don't supersize my value meal."
Your post was verbatim "imagine Trump saying this." So, yes, yes I could. And in the first sentence of my response where I wanted to note that one could easily imagine Trump saying something that dumb I literally said, "while i don't support Biden saying this." Combine that with me later calling the statement "stupid" and referencing it as "myopic" and i'm at a complete loss how and where you could conclude that I am "ok" with Biden saying it.
I don’t think I do. I think you’re grouping people regardless of any other factors as to whether they blindly support trump.
Careful using gate word "blindly supporting".
