"She is the future of our party"
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
We have this crazy guy on here that says they are. A real wacko.
When did you say they were?
Can't speak to that, but no, "all" Americans are not socialists and just don't realize it.
There are a growing number of Americans though who identify as socialists. And there are also many Americans who strongly support socialistic policies and programs.
btw, I also think some of those who identify as socialists today really embrace social democracy. If you listen to them, that is what it sounds like they really embrace.
Socialist embracing democracy...
Tell that bullshit to fools who might believe it.
Take a moment and read this article if you would...
https://socialistworker.org/2017/03/10/marxism-and-democracy
I couldn’t get passed this...
“And he only managed to become president by relying on the Electoral College relic of 19th century slave owners“
Yes, there are many different types of socialism, but they all share something in common that leads to the authoritarian government that oppresses and abuses the people it claims to help. Surely you've had at least one history class.
Hugo Chavez fancied himself to be a Democratic socialist. How has that worked out?
Well, I’m sorry. You might have been surprised if you had read on . . . might have even learned something.
Not true at all.
The embrace of authoritarianism is what leads to an authoritarian government. And yes, there is and has been authoritarian forms of socialism, although many other socialists would argue that true socialism is always anti-authoritarian.
Yes, of course. True socialism. The utopia. Chuckle. Different names have never masked the "true" socialism we've actually seen practiced in history. Tell me all about those successful socialist governments where the people are free from government authoritarianism and abuse.
I understand your point medic. There is the old refrain that socialism is good in theory but not in reality.
Then of course there are the socialists who claim the historical examples we have seen have been corrupted by authoritarianism. And even those who defend the authoritarian examples and claim it was a capitulation to capitalistic ideals that actually harmed people more (this is a common argument in regards to the USSR).
Which again, proves the point that there are different types of socialists, just like there are different types of libertarians. Heck, there are libertarian socialists!
Not all socialists are authoritarians. Democratic socialists in this country are not authoritarians, in fact, they are very much opposed to authoritarianism. To group them with past or current authoritarians is both factually wrong and intellectually dishonest.
Well, the author shouldn’t lead with something like that. He should know why we have the electoral college.
He told you why we have the electoral college. Sorry if you would rather believe the watered down (politically correct, fable) version instead. Plus, keep in mind, even Trump claims to be against the undemocratic electoral college.
With that said, if you had read on, you would have read the author taking issue with liberals, our two party syatem, etc. You might have found yourself agreeing with him some.
Idgaf if trump is against the electoral college. I know why we have it and thank God we do.
If you know why we have it, then you shouldn't have taken issue with what he wrote.
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c2f5789c5d_story.html?utm_term=.077deb85c421
Plus, if one is going to claim to be a defender of democracy, then one can't balk at those who take issue with the electoral college. It is consistent to be pro-democracy and anti-electoral college.
Last edited:
Except that Hillary won the popular vote, which means Trump is only president because of the electoral college. So, in essence you do gaf, indirectly.
And yet, Trump still claims he wants to abolish the electoral college.
Someone, btw, should call him on this. They should ask him to agree to abide by the popular vote winner in 2020. See how fast he agrees to that haha!
Whether or not he agrees to abide by the popular vote winner is pretty frickening irrelevant.
Just like EOs regarding birthright citizenship....Trump doesn’t get to change the constitution simply by agreeing to it.
That’s not how this works.
That’s not how any of this works.
That's cool and all, but anyone can read all of the period information available from the Constitutional Convention these days. Revising history to focus on something that wasn't the focus doesn't actually change history.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.9d29f03b2367
I agree. So stop trying to revise history to defend a relic that should have been abolished about the same time we abolished state legislatures electing our Senators.
Chuckle. Why do you get so pissy when confronted with reality?
After all these years, that "relic" still works just as it was intended.
After all these years, that "relic" still works just as it was intended.
Yep, it can still twart the will of the people.
With that said, I'll let you have the last word on this medic. Go ahead and defend an undemocratic relic some more while trying to equate democratic socialists (who want to abolish that relic) with authoritarianism. lol
Have a good evening.
Another good chuckle, sir. Did you forget that we're a Republic?
I'm still waiting on those socialist success stories...
