What happens to the Republican Party now? (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[Paul]

Just curious, why couldn't a socialist government be democratically chosen? Not that I would be in favor of it happening, but why couldn't a majority of the constituents of a nation decide that they favored a socialist system?

Yes, it could be chosen by the mandate of the majority. The socialism would them be imposed by coercion on the minority that favors capitalism.

I don't get this. As long as the government continues to follow the will of the people, either though direct or representative democracy, and majority rule dictates socialist policies, what is the issue?

OK, let's assume the majority decides all people with Spanish surnames have to go back to Mexico. Let's assume the majority decides abortion is murder and forbidden. The list is long in the rule by mob saga.

Be that actual socialism (government control of means of production and distribution), or just the "socialism-lite" (social welfare programs, health care, UBI, etc.) favored by a number of European nations.

The Europeans are not socialists. They are capitalists that offer the less fortunate a welfare state.

 

[insidejob]

The Europeans are not socialists. They care capitalists that offer the less fortunate a welfare state.

Never mind. Just never mind.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

The USA has plenty of socialist programs. but yet we are a Democratic Republic. But there is no successful pure democracy country and there is a no successful pure Socialist country. Whether people want to admit it or not, we have have plenty of socialist programs in the US. arguing language doesn't change that fact.

 

[Paul]

The USA has plenty of socialist programs. but yet we are a Democratic Republic. But there is no successful pure democracy country and there is a no successful pure Socialist country. Whether people want to admit it or not, we have have plenty of socialist programs in the US. arguing language doesn't change that fact.

Social programs paid by a capitalist economy is not what Marx had a in mid. Most call the welfare state socialism, but it is not.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Social programs paid by a capitalist economy is not what Marx had a in mid. Most call the welfare state socialism, but it is not.

Marxism is socialism, but not all socailism is Marxism. do you realize Karl Marx didn't invent or start socialism. So what Karl Marx had in mind isn't relevant.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

matter of fact, there are many documented uses of the term social democracies before Karl Marx... But i guess that doesn't count?

 

[brandon]

Yes, it could be chosen by the mandate of the majority. The socialism would them be imposed by coercion on the minority that favors capitalism.

Corollary: Capitalism could be chosen by the mandate of the majority. It would then be imposed by coercion on the minority that favors socialism.

 

[RobF]

matter of fact, there are many documented uses of the term social democracies before Karl Marx... But i guess that doesn't count?

We went through all this in the previous thread he did this in - he'll define socialism as Marxism one minute, then he'll define it as just a workers' owned business the next, depending on whether he's trying to argue socialism is some absolute that must exclude capitalism, or whether he's trying to argue capitalism is inclusive and allows socialism.

In the same way he'll argue 'democratic socialism is an oxymoron because socialism is coercive' one minute, then argue that all democracy is coercive the next.

It's just shenanigans at this point. I don't think we have to let it derail every thread.

 

[brandon]

We went through all this in the previous thread he did this in - he'll define socialism as Marxism one minute, then he'll define it as just a workers' owned business the next, depending on whether he's trying to argue socialism is some absolute that must exclude capitalism, or whether he's trying to argue capitalism is inclusive and allows socialism.

In the same way he'll argue 'democratic socialism is an oxymoron because socialism is coercive' one minute, then argue that all democracy is coercive the next.

It's just shenanigans at this point. I don't think we have to let it derail every thread.

Shenanigans implies intent.

@Paul has no idea what he intends. He just vomits the opposite of whatever the person arguing with him says.

 

[Paul]

Marxism is socialism, but not all socailism is Marxism. do you realize Karl Marx didn't invent or start socialism. So what Karl Marx had in mind isn't relevant.

Sure, there are a zillion definitions of socialism. All the definitions are in place to soften the evil true meaning of socialism.

The fundamental meaning of socialism is that there is no capitalism or right to private property. And socialism can only be imposed by coercion.

 

[bird]

Democratic socialism is a much greater oxymoron than libertarian paradise.

Democratic-Socialism is an oxymoron; it combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually antithetical to democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social services to the government, then you have given up self-determination and freedom.

The government then must determine what you get, when you get it, whether you need it and most importantly whether you “deserve” it. They must rank you personally and morally.

Democratic-Socialism is an oxymoron

Democratic-Socialism is an oxymoron; it combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually antithetical to democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social

www.coastalview.com

A libertarian paradise only works for the few that are high on the competency hierarchy. Those that are low in the hierarchy need the state for support.

According to Jonathan Haidt libertarians have less compassion than conservatives.





I will admit that the word socialism causes an orgasm in many.

Doesn’t cause an orgasm in me but it certainly seems to do so to you as you are quick to trot it out.

Your definition of democratic socialism is irrelevant as it has no basis in reality.

A libertarian paradise has never, does not and never will exist. It has less to do with hierarchy and much more to do with one of your “dirty” words: tribalism.

As for the rest?

 

[bird]

Social programs paid by a capitalist economy is not what Marx had a in mid. Most call the welfare state socialism, but it is not.

You do know that Marx said the end was the withering away of the state?

 

[Paul]

You do know that Marx said the end was the withering away of the state?

Yes, I am aware of the stateless utopia.

 

[bird]

Yes, I am aware of the stateless utopia.

Yeah, it is the modern conservative wet dream. And it was the wet dream of the Chicago Boys.

 

[Paul]

Yeah, it is the modern conservative wet dream. And it was the wet dream of the Chicago Boys.

Nope!
The stateless idea came from Marx. Obviously a society without a state that is in control is anathema to the present day socialist-wanna bees. Therefore, i can see why there is confusion.

 

[bird]

Nope!
The stateless idea came from Marx. Obviously a society without a state that is in control is anathema to the present day socialist-wanna bees. Therefore, i can see why there is confusion.

Yet…Saint Ronald Reagan the Foolish famously codified the modern Republican Party‘s mantra: government is the problem.

So I can see the cognitive dissonance causing some confusion for you.

 

[Paul]

Yet…Saint Ronald Reagan the Foolish famously codified the modern Republican Party‘s mantra: government is the problem.

So I can see the cognitive dissonance causing some confusion for you.

I loved Reagan. He was charming and could tell a joke. This jokes illustrates why socialism is crapola in a funny manner. Sorry if this hurts your feelings.

 

[bird]

I loved Reagan. He was charming and could tell a joke. This jokes illustrates why socialism is crapola in a funny manner. Sorry if this hurts your feelings.

Doesn’t hurt my feelings at all. Reagan was excellent at reading the lines others provided for him. Sorry if it bothers you that Reagan was an empty suit.