⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.
RemyBrown wrote:
Funny.
SideWalker thinks Texas now believes in political correctness.
The trans are fine, but the political correctness is insane!
Yeah yeah, you told us the best thing about Trump is that now you get to say the N word, what a joke you are.
You included the caveat of not when black people are around LOL, truth is, you've always been able to use the word in your trailer park.
You guys enjoyed Trump Socialism almost as much as Democrat Socialism.
Almost.
Double_R wrote:
I’ll keep waiting for your definition.
You dodge, as usual, responding about Mandami who is the most socialist Democrat elected in the States.
Do you want to know what socialism is? See what Mandami is either doing or trying to do. I'm not going to waste words to explain something you are reluctant to understand. So,...
Shoresy wrote:
There is no doubt that MAGA brought a Bill Clinton-type president to solidify socialism as part of the American GOP. What the USA has now, and going forward, are two socialist parties: one on the right that is headed toward nationalist socialism and one on the left that caters to globalist socialism.
Because globalist socialism is failing very hard in the EU and other places like Canada due to cultural tribalism, it's very easy to predict where the USA will be in 10 years.
Well, if you reduce the context to that, I prefer a thousand times the nationalist socialism. I guess the man of the quirky mustach was right in certain things.
Many members of the Democrats support the Democratic Socialist of America. The important thing is that they do not support the Soviet- style of Socialism.
They place higher priority on the freedom of speech, the right of private ownership and the freedom of choice in social life.
They are gravitated to realizing for fair and reasonable wage among workers in many industries, increasing public money for welfare and social infrastructure.
The core of their movement is placed on transforming America for the benefit of many American people not for the wealthy and powerful, self-interest oriented
politicians. This contributes to improving the quality of life among them.
They place higher priority on the freedom of speech,
Like shooting people in the neck. That kind of priority.
the right of private ownership
Like government-owned stores and confiscatory taxes and fines on landlords for the purpose of asset seizure.
and the freedom of choice in social life
Like the choice to be canceled for saying the wrong things. For not choosing the correct culture. Harsh punishments for not complying with the culture of the party.
All of this is Soviet Style.
The Cold War never ended.
Shining wrote:
Leave it to twitter rightoids to have some of the most insane takes on this election. I doubt the Dems can capitalize on this win, but Republicans are going to spin their wheels in the mud and probably lose in 2028. Starting the Iran war was retarded and its unbelievable that people genuinely like the likes of Rubio and Hegseth.
I could understand not liking Rubio's politics, but putting him next to Hegseth is a stretch.
How will America become a socialist country?
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right."
-Charlie Kirk
Slava Ukraini!
Йди в пекло!
When Trump bankrupts America.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has 100,000 members, that's one in 3,500 Americans.
In the last five years there have been a grand total of zero gender reassignment surgeries performed on children 12 and under.
And of no, we are heading into the "War on Christmas" season LOL.
Run run little piggies, or the boogie man will get you.
And very very soon indeed, it will be next year.
And we can all sing "Imagine" by John Lennon and feel all warm and friendly for a nanosecond.
Remember when the Germans and British stopped fighting and played football in no-mans-land...How jolly civilised.
You dodge, as usual, responding about Mandami who is the most socialist Democrat elected in the States.
Do you want to know what socialism is? See what Mandami is either doing or trying to do. I'm not going to waste words to explain something you are reluctant to understand. So,...
If wasting words was really your concern then you would make an actual argument instead of playing these silly little games. There’s hardly anything more wasteful than typing words that say absolutely nothing.
You claim I am dodging you by not responding to what you said about Mamdani, but you didn’t say anything at all. You just invoked his name as if it speaks for itself. Well I hate to break it to you but that’s not how reasoned argument works, you actually have to make real points, and yes that requires typing words.
It is of course obvious what you’re really doing here. For months now I have challenged you to define socialism since it is you that keeps invoking it as some kind of evil of the Democratic Party and you just refuse to do it. That is breathtakingly dishonest of you.
You will not define it because as soon as you do one of two things happen; either you make it clear that what you’re calling socialism doesn’t exist in any meaningful way in American politics, or you define it in such a way that is not scary at all or even controversial, and in fact enjoys wide support among the electorate. Either way, your attempts to demonize and fear monger completely falls apart.
So I’ll ask you again and can’t wait to hear your latest excuse… define socialism. Clearly. Explicitly. Not by naming a bunch of fantasy things you claim democrats are doing that they’re not. An actual working definition that we can apply to democratic proposals and assess whether the proposals meet the definition you provided. Then we can have a real, adult conversation.
SergeantLynch wrote:
And very very soon indeed, it will be next year.
And we can all sing "Imagine" by John Lennon and feel all warm and friendly for a nanosecond.
That's not Trump's song, it's too hard to march to.
Remember when the Germans and British stopped fighting and played football in no-mans-land...How jolly civilised.
I'm thinking it's going to get a lot less civilized before it gets better.
He is a malignant narcissist who has been slapped down by the American people, and hell hath no fury like a malignant narcissist scorned. He has always been vengeful with his enemies and now he sees the American people as his enemy, and as a lame duck he has nothing to lose. In his election the greatest divide of votes was level of education, he "loves the poorly educated" and he waged a holy war against higher education, intellectual pursuits, and scientific research, all just to be spiteful for the highly educated voting against him.
He takes great pleasure in wielding his destructive power, he couldn't have cared less about the Republican congress, and a Democratic congress will get even less respect, so he probably feels more powerful rather than less powerful since the midterms, I think he feels free to go to war with the American people. His new chief of staff makes it clear he is going full authoritarian and will be causing the most pain and suffering he can, he is mean spirited, vengeful, violent, and in the end, he doesn't care if he kills everyone, he would probably take great pleasure in that.
He's got his ICE gestapo in the field (or at least he thinks he does), he's got the pardon power to raise a personal army, and the US military is in play, he fired all the minority senior commanders and Hegseth is trying to make the military in his White Supremacist/Christian Nationalist image. Real or not, I think that's the delusional way he sees it (Stephen Miller has always seen it that way). He's looking for allies and I think that's the reason he's currently trying to set up a meeting with Putin and Xi (see cartoon below),
I think he's going to go too far, and it ends one of three ways;
1) 25th Amendment
2) Impeached and removed from office (enough remaining Republicans in Congress end up more afraid of the voters than they are of him)
3) A bullet
In any event, I really don't think we are going to be holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" any time soon.
You paint a bleak picture.
SergeantLynch wrote:
You paint a bleak picture.
I really hope I'm wrong, I'm usually known to be optimistic, but there's nothing usual about Trump and these times.
I was very good at analyzing and predicting politics for decades till Trump arrived on the scene, pretty much been confused and surprised ever since then, so I'm probably wrong again...but my gut feel is clearly a sense of impending doom.
He's not going to allow a peaceful transition of power, of that I'm sure, and I think it will make Jan 6 look like a picnic.
It was Israel’s PM Netanyahu who talked Trump into going to war with Iran.
The midterm elections was such a landslide for the Democrats that Trump has no choice but to accept the blue wave results.
The final solution requires an Iranian nuke.
SatanLucy wrote:
He's not going to allow a peaceful transition of power, of that I'm sure, and I think it will make Jan 6 look like a picnic.
Given that he loses all power if he allows transition of power, and probably even goes to prison after if he doesnt get impeached immediatelly, can you think of one good reason why Trump would allow peaceful transition of power?
Trump is in lose all gain nothing situation if he allows peaceful transition of power.
He's an authoritarian that thinks he is a dictator; he will relinquish power only when he is forced to. There will not be a peaceful transition of power, it will be violent transition of power.
I expected Trump to lose because even Americans cant be retarded enough to support this, and his approval rating was so low that its insane he is even still in power.
It's insane that he won a second term. Trump is the personification of American insanity.
Ever since I said at start of Iran war, that Iran will win the war, people thought I was joking. No, I was not joking. Trump will be the loser. I knew it from day 1 of war. Pretty much every military expert was predicting the same as me. However, what I also knew is that Iran war will be Trump's political suicide, mainly because he ran an election campaign promising to end all wars. Betraying that promise was his biggest political suicide he could do.
As predicted, Iran kicked our ass, but it was the Republican Congress and the American people that paid the price, Trump could care less about that. The war was in Trumps interest and that is all he has ever cared about.
I actually even wondered why Trump started war in Iran. It doesnt seem like a rational decision. Someone probably blackmailed him to do it. Decision simply doesnt make sense on any level.
It was time for a new Epstein distraction, and he saw it as a huge money maker.
He has announced unexpected changes regarding the war over 40 times since he started it, his family makes a killing in the prediction market each time he changes the story of what he is going to do next. lran closing the straights. caused a global shortage that let US oil and gas companies make huge margins and increase their stock prices dramatically, since the war started Trump traded over $17 million in oil and gas stocks making over $35 million in profit. His family has made hundreds of millions trading in the prediction markets, go figure, but his sons have an uncanny ability to "predict" what their unpredictable father is going to do next with this war. Trump being erratic and unpredictable with the war is a money-making scheme that has made him and his family hundreds of millions.
Trump's entire second term has been about monetizing the Presidency for profit; Trump started the Iran war because he knew he could monetize it huge.
BTW, how many times have you heard anyone talking about Epstein since the war started?
Double_R wrote:
If wasting words was really your concern then you would make an actual argument instead of playing these silly little games. There’s hardly anything more wasteful than typing words that say absolutely nothing.
You claim I am dodging you by not responding to what you said about Mamdani, but you didn’t say anything at all. You just invoked his name as if it speaks for itself. Well I hate to break it to you but that’s not how reasoned argument works, you actually have to make real points, and yes that requires typing words.
It is of course obvious what you’re really doing here. For months now I have challenged you to define socialism since it is you that keeps invoking it as some kind of evil of the Democratic Party and you just refuse to do it. That is breathtakingly dishonest of you.
You will not define it because as soon as you do one of two things happen; either you make it clear that what you’re calling socialism doesn’t exist in any meaningful way in American politics, or you define it in such a way that is not scary at all or even controversial, and in fact enjoys wide support among the electorate. Either way, your attempts to demonize and fear monger completely falls apart.
So I’ll ask you again and can’t wait to hear your latest excuse… define socialism. Clearly. Explicitly. Not by naming a bunch of fantasy things you claim democrats are doing that they’re not. An actual working definition that we can apply to democratic proposals and assess whether the proposals meet the definition you provided. Then we can have a real, adult conversation.
So, you're using the 'define that for me' old trick to keep avoiding the subject when you perfectly know what socialism is. I mean, you're a socialist, how could you not know about it? Of course, everybody here knows about socialism except you, go figure.
But anyway, I'm sincerely not willing to explain something I did many times in this forum. What I'm going to do though is to tell what Mamdani plans to do in the US since he's a true socialist, but don't come later off to say that he's not because he identifies himself as such. In fact, he's a member, if not the leader, of the 'Democratic Socialists of America' political movement. You can see it in their webpage (https://socialists.nyc/).
It's really amazing the amount of bullshit you can find in this webpage. It summarizes what a socialist aims in terms of economy. It's terryfing. Mind you, you can be impressed at first by all the moral exhibitionism of these people but the truth is that their goverment plan has failed miserably in the past. I still don't understand how they keep promoting the same failed proposals over and over again when there are several countries that broke up just because of those socialist policies. And that's the most sounding characteristic of socialists, they are sectarians, they don't learn or accept from experience but only repeat the same shit as if it were a worldwide success.
If you keep surfing in their webpage, you can see something that you will find in every socialist speech, the hatred and resentment toward the rich, the wealthy. And I'd like to explain why rich people are necessary. In this world there are two ways to create wealth, collectively (socialism) and individually (capitalism). You can ask any economist which one is the most efficient for an economy, they will tell you that it's the individual promoted by capitalism. It's a matter of efficiency, whether give the means of production to a smart, qualified guy that will create thousands of jobs or give it to the ignorant masses that will fuck it all up. The statistics are very clear, the countries that adopted a libertarian economy, meaning zero socialism, are the wealthiest. Even so, Mandami and his friends promote collectivism as the panacea. Just see what their webpage reads: 'In the United States, we're told that we live in a democracy, but that isn't true: Our workplaces are managed by bosses, who determine how we work and how much we make, even if it's not enough to make ends meet. Our landlords raise our rents unjustifiably...'
I can go on and on explaining about control of prices, high taxes, open borders, and a long list of best wishes for our society that socialists will fulfill with other people's money, but I think that's enough to have a broad idea of what socialism is.
So, you're using the 'define that for me' old trick
Yes, it’s called rational conversation. When you are attempting to argue that people you disagree with fit into a label and want that label to imply “bad”, then you have to define what that label actually means and explain how the people you categorize under it fit into it.
This is basic common sense. I’m sorry of that feels like a trick to you.
I mean, you're a socialist
A completely useless statement given that you still will not define what the word means.
Of course, everybody here knows about socialism
Most people actually don’t, in fact the people who love to accuse everyone else of being socialists a most tend to be the people who understand the word the least. But I’m not interested in litigating what the word actually means, it’s obvious you have no idea and for some reason even with google right there you still can’t be bothered. All I’m asking you to do is provide your working definition, which is a really easy and basic ask for anyone who wants to argue in good faith, but you don’t so you continue to tap dance around it.
What I'm going to do though is to tell what Mamdani plans to do in the US since he's a true socialist
This thread and this conversation in particular is about our national politics, why do you think telling me what one mayor of one city wants to do is relevant?
I can go on and on explaining about control of prices, high taxes, open borders, and a long list of best wishes for our society that socialists will fulfill with other people's money, but I think that's enough to have a broad idea of what socialism is.
Or you could just define it, but you won’t, because then you would actually have to substantiate your bullshit.
There’s no serious movement at the national level calling for price controls, even though Trump did say he was going to lower the prices on day one and MAGA cheered him on, but that’s not price control of course.
“High taxes” is relative and therefore meaningless.
Open borders is a right wing fantasy that never existed, and isn’t even in the same category of conversation.
All you can do is hand waive and insult, cause you have nothing to back your position up with.
That is what Trump does at his campaigns hand wave and insult and do both to the tune of YMCA.
Double_R wrote:
Most people actually don’t, in fact the people who love to accuse everyone else of being socialists a most tend to be the people who understand the word the least. But I’m not interested in litigating what the word actually means, it’s obvious you have no idea and for some reason even with google right there you still can’t be bothered. All I’m asking you to do is provide your working definition, which is a really easy and basic ask for anyone who wants to argue in good faith, but you don’t so you continue to tap dance around it.
This thread and this conversation in particular is about our national politics, why do you think telling me what one mayor of one city wants to do is relevant?
What a way to run away from a discussion. I've just explained what socialism is about but you keep giving excuses to shake off the debate, like this one where you state that Mandami has nothing to do with the national politics. He's so irrelevant to you that he went to visit Trump to have a talk. I mean, you are supposed to live in New York conducting tours for many visitors and you tell me that New York is not relevant for the United States? For fk sake, New York is the financial heart of the world, no less, along with London. It's not a coincidence that a socialist Democrat like Mandami chose New York as his lab to experiment with the evil socialism. Don't be surprised to find Mamdani running for governor or even for president. You might have already seen his website, he says there that he and his socialist pals want to extrapolate what he does in New York to the whole country.
Anyways. You wanted a definition of socialism from google? There you have your definition to break it down together. It's the typical definition you will hear from your favourite socialist politicians and it's not different to what I've explained many times. They call it Democratic Socialism, as if the word 'Democratic' could downplay the evil inherent in socialism.
...democratic socialism is a system where ordinary working people—rather than wealthy elites or corporations—democratically control the economy, workplaces, and society to meet human needs instead of maximizing private profit.
As you can see it's no different to what I've explained so far. Socialists hate the wealthy, they can't stand people that make financial progress, they can't deal with the envy that the rich provokes them. So, for terminating the wealthy people they propose a collective system where everybody owns everything, a collective economy.
But let me explain why socialism is a bad idea, I'll explain it as if you were a toddler. Imagine that you are in charge of a class in a high school, you will have good students with A grades and bad students with F grades, it's very common. And one day you wake up with this stupid idea to fix the inequality that exists in your class, so you say 'from now on we're gonna distribute the grades equally among all the class'. So, in the next exam, you add up the grades of all your students and distribute it equally so you grade all your students the same. Of course, your bad students will be happy but not your good students. Next exam something strange happen, the average grade falls to D or even E and you'll ask yourself what it's going on? It's simple, the good students didn't study for the exam because they know they will not have the grade they deserve. This is socialism at its finest, it doesn't work, it never worked, it will never work.