Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Neuhaus, Aug 25, 2016.
I just noticed this unique offer.
I think Jon Oliver dealt pretty effectively with the whole scandals issue. Check it out: https://youtu.be/h1Lfd1aB9YI .
If I could, I would be hono(u)red to vote for Secretary Clinton; she is, yes, an amazing candidate in terms of actually being able to do a job she applies for. There's no non-bullshit reasons not to pick Hillary Clinton, especially over that reality TV character who inexplicably runs against her. The choice would be much clearer than choosing between the Liberals and the New Democrats in our neck of the woods.
Aside from the fact that she is a socialist kleptocrat. To prevent the U.S. becoming Venezuela Norte is a non-bullshit reason to not want HRC.
With all due respect, Clintonism is mostly to the right to the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that ruled here longer than any other party. Canada is far from perfect, but "Venezuela Norte" it ain't. Not even close, in fact. On the other hand, Trump seem to be a politician of Berlusconi/Orban/Putin variety - good deal closer in style and substance to what they have in certain backwards countries.
But you have a point. Ideological disagreements, no matter how mistaken on issues, would not exactly be a "bullshit" reason not to support HRC. one would still be responsible for unleashing orange plague in Chinese-made suit on the land, but differing opinions do deserve respect.
...besides, preferring The Donald to HRC because "kleptocrat" is a bit... illogical.
She's not even close to being a socialist. She's a corporatist through and through.
Corporatism came to be for some socialists having to face the fact that socialism can't work. The corporatists sought to achieve their totalitarian goals through control more than ownership.
Socialists of a century ago saw capitalism as a stepping stone to the socialist slave state. HRC and our POTUS see control of the means of production as a stepping stone to the socialist slave state.
Really? The socialist roots of Fascism are unknown?
And a lot of early libertarianism came from the left. But just as libertarians aren't leftists now, neither is there any meaningful connection now between socialism and corporatism, certainly not that one would call Clinton a socialist when she decidedly isn't one.
Apparently we may actually see something come to light courtesy of WikiLeaks
â€˜Wednesday Hillary Clinton Is Doneâ€™: Reports Julian Assangeâ€™s Announcement On Tuesday Will Finish Her - Fox Nation
So the balcony press conference has been cancelled citing security concerns.
Assange threw out a leak indicating HRC once commented "Can't we just drone this guy?" in reference to Assange and so Hillary haters are chomping. Hopefully that isn't the entirety of his release. I'm not terribly impressed.
Maybe the big package, if there is one, will actually matter.
I always enjoy some schadenfreude when career politicians get what's coming to them, but I've sort of given up that anything will materialize from this. Wake me when something happens.
Fascism, just like communism, is a form of government. Socialism is an economic system that can exist under just about any form of government. Fascism is rooted in extreme nationalism.
Socialism cannot be just an economic system as it is imposed. Imposed by government. A government imposing an economic system is a despotic government.
In a free country collective actions are taken voluntarily. If you wish to be part of a health collective, for instance, then you join or start one. If you subsequently decide to leave the collective then you do so.
Socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production and exchange is controlled, owned or regulated by the community (typically, in this discussion, through a government).
"Health Exchanges" are not goods produced. They are public services rendered.
You also cannot opt out of police protection. Is that a sign of despotism? Should you be allowed to withdraw yourself from the jurisdiction of the local police and instead rely on a private security contract of your choosing?
Governments provide services and regulate trade and other affairs. My only real issue is when government get into things that they really shouldn't be part of. I'm OK with building roads, schools and making sure my doctor has a legitimate medical degree. I'm far less OK with playing world police, banning naturally occurring non-invasive plants and requiring funerals for miscarried fetuses.
"the community" has no meaning.
If the economic system is imposed then that is by government and that is socialism. If the economic system is not imposed then participation is voluntary and that ain't socialism.
Goods and services, aka, the economy.
You cannot opt in to government police protection as the police are not obligated to protect you.
If the police, in service to their controllers, are acting despotically.
For security, yes. To escape due punishment, no.
Yes, you should.
Today was the day we were supposed to get the revelatory leaks from Assange but, as far as I know, nothing has been released. There may actually be damning materials somewhere but when you make these dramatic promises and then don't follow through you run the risk of appearing like these groups who periodically predict the end of the world on specific dates. I don't like to wish bad things on people but if he actually has something toxic on her then I'd like to know. I think we'd all want to know. But until something is released he just makes himself look foolish.
Socialism is not always imposed. It is often agreed upon by the majority. In a democracy or republic, people either vote directly or vote for representatives. There have been communities living under virtual anarchy that have opted for socialism.
Separate names with a comma.