The heckler at the Bernie Sanders rally at the University of Massachusetts on January second wore a Trump shirt, and held a sign that said “Obama is as Christian as Bruce Jenner is a woman.”
Bernie noted, “Here’s a Trump supporter worried about Mr. Trump’s money… I say to Mr. Trump and his supporters that the billionaires of this country will not continue to own this nation.”
The crowd responded by chanting, “Bernie, Bernie!” as the man was escorted peacefully out of the facility.
What happens when someone protests a Trump Rally?
Trump supporters say “Shoot him!” “Kick his ass,” and “Light the motherfucker on fire!”
There’s your clear difference between two groups of Americans.
One group represents our better nature. They value democracy and government of, by, and for the people.
Then there are the far Right, neo-fascist, Republican con-servatves wanting a belligerent bigoted billionaire to lead our nation.
Thankfully polls show Bernie winning a contest between the two. No matter who wins the nominations, the election will still essentially be between these two factions.
Sadly, if Bernie isn't nominated, our choice will be between two corporatist pawns of Wall Street and the Military Industrial/State Security Complex.
In other words, same old, same old.
====
Update:
This recent incident at a Vermont rally shows us what a thug Trump really is. And no matter what the Right says, he has a big fat "R" attached to his name. He is one of them to the core.
While hecklers are removed from all rallies, Trump reveals his true character in this act of a cruel bully.
Bernie noted, “Here’s a Trump supporter worried about Mr. Trump’s money… I say to Mr. Trump and his supporters that the billionaires of this country will not continue to own this nation.”
The crowd responded by chanting, “Bernie, Bernie!” as the man was escorted peacefully out of the facility.
What happens when someone protests a Trump Rally?
Trump supporters say “Shoot him!” “Kick his ass,” and “Light the motherfucker on fire!”
There’s your clear difference between two groups of Americans.
One group represents our better nature. They value democracy and government of, by, and for the people.
Then there are the far Right, neo-fascist, Republican con-servatves wanting a belligerent bigoted billionaire to lead our nation.
Thankfully polls show Bernie winning a contest between the two. No matter who wins the nominations, the election will still essentially be between these two factions.
Sadly, if Bernie isn't nominated, our choice will be between two corporatist pawns of Wall Street and the Military Industrial/State Security Complex.
In other words, same old, same old.
====
Update:
This recent incident at a Vermont rally shows us what a thug Trump really is. And no matter what the Right says, he has a big fat "R" attached to his name. He is one of them to the core.
While hecklers are removed from all rallies, Trump reveals his true character in this act of a cruel bully.
“I thought I heard a little voice over there. Get him outta there! Don’t give him his coat. Keep his coat. Confiscate his coat. You know it’s about ten degrees below zero outside. No, you can keep his coat. Tell him we’ll send it to him in a couple of weeks.”
Since Nixon, American fascism has the letter, "R" all over it.
Posts
32 comments:
What do you think of the idea of writing in Bernie's name on the ballot if he didn't win the primary? If people get out and vote in the primary, he should win - if the election isn't fixed, which could definitely happen.
Hillary is so unpopular, I can't imagine her winning it without some kind of fix, and it's clear she's the establishment favorite.
Anna, I've come to the realization that although presidential elections may not be fixed or rigged, per se, I have no doubt that the powers-that-be still hold the reins when it comes to who's allowed to represent either major party...and those who hold the reins determine who reigns.
Despite the significant current popularity of Sanders and Trump, neither will appease the ruling class. I'm convinced it will come down to Clinton and Bush. Either way, the elites get their "business as usual".
But I'll definitely do the write-in. I always do. (Over the years, I've voted for myself for every position you can imagine.)
I have no particular problem with a write-in for a primary election. However, a write in at the general election (assuming it is Clinton and a republican) only benefits the republican. Clinton with all her faults (and they are many) is still far better than a republican. We cannot go down "the crazy road".
Jerry Critter: "We cannot go down 'the crazy road'."
Jerry, we already have. I've come to the conclusion that voting for what seems rational, and strategic, only benefits the elite and maintains the status quo. As you've read several times from me -- as I've climbed on the soapbox of Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants over the years -- voting for either major party these days is just another vote for the reigning duopoly, which, in effect, is casting your ballot for, and agreeing to, more of the same.
I don't want more of the same -- which means, unfortunately, voting for and backing the inequality of our economic system and the systemic foreign policy of permanent war desired by the less than 1%. I'm not doing that anymore. Sometimes one has to draw a line in the sand. I've drawn mine.
Write ins require organized participation. We know that "organized" isn't the defining characteristic of the pro-Democracy minority in our country.
Voter apathy, indifference, frustration, and hopelessness have contributed as much to the downfall of democracy as the machinations of the corporate/Far Right cartel.
Keeping Republicans out of the White House is a noble priority, but unless this is accompanied by far greater voter turnout at every election, we will continue our slide into a third world neo-feudal military/security/surveillance state.
The empire may be crumbling, but the economic elites are making out like swaggering yo-ho-ing pirates as it collapses.
There will always be economic elites, always has been, always will be. It doesn't matter if they have political power or not. There will always be at top 1%, a top 0.1%, a top 0.001%, etc. Even with the top marginal tax rate at 90%, they still existed. Voting for a third party, writing in the name of someone who has zero chance of winning will change nothing. At best, you are just massaging your ego, giving yourself an excuse to say, "It's not my fault."
Change will come from getting more of the electorate involved and voting. Ultimately, we control the process...if enough of us vote. That's the bottom line. It is not where the money comes from. The change could be catastrophic if each of us that voted in the last national election just got one more person to vote. That's all it will take. Each of us, get one more person to vote!
You probably have a family member you could work on.
Dave Dubya: "Voter apathy, indifference, frustration, and hopelessness have contributed as much to the downfall of democracy as the machinations of the corporate/Far Right cartel."
and...
Jerry Critter: "Voting for a third party, writing in the name of someone who has zero chance of winning will change nothing. At best, you are just massaging your ego, giving yourself an excuse to say, 'It's not my fault.'"
Dave, mine is not voter apathy, but just the opposite -- it's announcing a very strong message. My write-in (or third-party) is screaming that I'm on to them and I'm not going to play their game any longer.
Jerry, voting for either major party (both, combining to form what is more appropriately, and should be referred to as, the "corporatism party") gives democracy zero chance of winning and changes nothing. Except, I suppose, it changes the figurehead while maintaining the current paradigm which has finally been correctly recognized as a plutocracy.
Jerry, is this what you want to continue supporting? Your argument for voting for the lesser-of-two-evils seems to indicate this.
Just think what message would be sent if every person, who usually stays away from the polls due to abject apathy, instead voted third-party (or write-in)! Although I've always voted in every election, presidential or just local, for the last twenty-five years, please consider me the beginning of this groundswell of a new "revolution".
"Just think what message would be sent if every person, who usually stays away from the polls due to abject apathy, instead voted third-party (or write-in)!"
That would be a wonderful thing and a terrific message. But just voting would do it too. The first step is to get people to vote. The rest will follow.
JG,
I was referring to the non-voting public being as destructive to democracy, albeit by dereliction, as the plutocratic Right.
If that isn't remedied, then it's over.
If voting for a democrat over a republican prevents another war, then it is worth it for that alone. Keeping extremists out of the Supreme Court would be the other significant factor.
That said, corpo-neocon dems certainly offer no comfort or sanity so I have no objection to voting one's conscience.
Dave, I would argue that Trump's core support is NOT from true conservatives or most Tea Party supporters. Indeed there are a LOT of "independents" and Reagan Democrats that have supported Trump because of his stances on immigration. Many of Trump's supporters are low-information voters that only listen to sound bites.
Personally I think Trump is a closet liberal with an enormous ego. Many of the ideals he espouses are NOT conservative. The fact that he has changed positions on many core issues conveniently to run for the GOP nomination in the last few years would make even Mitt Romney Blush.
Hillary is an abject crook that makes Nixon look like an altar boy. She is NOT the answer our republic needs.
I wish this could come down to an election based on a debate over ideals: Socialism versus free market capitalism, identity politics and relativism versus strict constitutionalism. Big government versus smaller efficient government. In other words, I would love to see the nominations come down to a Sanders versus Cruz general election.
If Sanders wins based on ideas, then so be it. Of course our American republic dies with his win. At least we wouldn't have a self serving egotist ass like Clinton or Trump destroying what remains of our once proud nation.
TP,
You have a clearer understanding of Trump supporters than Trump supporters have of themselves.
With Trump it is very easy to see the worst of the other side in his words and temperament. However, I would say he is neither liberal nor conservative, but essentially a narcissistic, self-serving egotist. I mean, really. Can anyone reasonably argue against this assessment?
This is an interesting report on Trump supporters:
Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters
Mr. Trump appears to hold his greatest strength among people like these — registered Democrats who identify as Republican leaners — with 43 percent of their support, according to the Civis data
So, yes, I’d have to agree these are low information voters. It can also be stated that they are not “true liberals” or “true democrats” as well, just like their fellow low information “Reagan Democrats”.
I’d say Trump supporters are primarily idiots who watch too much “reality TV”. But many are indeed Republicans, by actions and self-identification.
The bottom line is Bernie supporters are much nicer than Trump supporters.
I think this fact reflects on both candidates and their positions.
And don’t worry about Bernie. If a TPP-shilling corporatist like Obama the “Marxist” couldn’t destroy the country, how could Bernie get any of his policies through a Republican congress? Bernie is an important voice of a true alternative to our corrupt and failing “Donor/Owner Society”. I think a lot of independents see this, too.
“Socialism versus free market capitalism” is an inaccurate over-simplification. Sanders is advocating Democratic socialism combined with regulated capitalism. Both can be argued to be under the constitutional “general welfare clause” and regulation of commerce. It is not “Stalinism versus freedom”.
But fear not, the nation is on track to collapse just as fast, or likely faster, without Bernie.
Permanent wars, wealth inequality, Wall Street swindles, and corporatist policies are products of both major parties. Too bad true conservatives are too busy blaming true liberals for everything, instead of joining them against the madness, corruption and greed of Trump’s fellow billionaire class.
If billionaires and corporatists are allowed to run the country, how can anyone expect them to do anything but advance their narrow interests over those of the rest of us?
Dave Dubya to T. Paine: "And don’t worry about Bernie. If a TPP-shilling corporatist like Obama the “Marxist” couldn’t destroy the country, how could Bernie get any of his policies through a Republican congress?"
The truth is mightier than the sword, but unfortunately the vast majority of conservatives never see, much less understand, the truth -- so even when the sword's up their ass, they still don't "get it". They're so tied up in their outdated ideology and beliefs that they can't see how the political and economic landscape has totally transformed into something never experienced before. They're still thinking like it's fifty years or more ago. It's a new world.
How conservatives can think, even on a nano-microbial scale, that Obama is a "Marxist", is totally outside the realm of rationality. But they do, and they espouse it all the time. That remark gets categorized and filed with the other harbinger of total stupidity: "The liberal mass-media".
Yeah, Bernie Sanders is the only one speaking truth to power. That's the reason he'll never get in, much less win the Democratic nomination. The powers-that-be will never let it happen. It's already evident with the studies that show his air-time with the "liberal mass-media" is a minuscule fraction of what Trump (and Clinton) is receiving -- despite his large audiences and crowd-appeal.
The whole process is rigged -- and if that's not successful, it's fixed -- and the American participants in the sham deserve what they get.
The powers-that-be will never let it happen.
This is the new real "American way". Only corporatists are allowed in the White House.
Corporate media is fact. The "Liberal media" fiction is the Right's propaganda tool to convince low information and reason impaired voters only Republicans, FOX and Limbaugh are telling the truth.
And they buy into it completely. "Belief over fact" is the operating formula. This is why Obama is called a Marxist and every other wacked out accusation they can pull out their ass.
The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government. – Paul Craig Roberts
It is astounding that media corporations in business to make profit and sell advertising to other corporate interests, while making efforts to never undermine or question those interests, is seen as anything but corporate media. What better proof is there that their propaganda works perfectly?
It is the essential and primary Big Lie of the corporate-owned Right. From this lie the rest flows freely and un-tethered from reality. Only in America is climate change science denied so successfully by energy corporations who have studied the problem and suppressed the truth for years. There's your "American Exceptionalism".
When you have the public trusting corporate PR over science, it's over folks. It is such an effective echo chamber of propaganda that fascists of the past could only dream of.
Welcome to Corporate America, home of your friendly military/surveillance state. Big Brother isn’t just the government. Their media and telecom corporate partners do much of the propaganda and surveillance work for them.
This is the fact the Right must replace with their “liberal media” lies to better serve this corporatocracy.
"Politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex." -Frank Zappa
Regarding Trump, “I would say he is neither liberal nor conservative, but essentially a narcissistic, self-serving egotist.”
I agree with your assessment Dave. Trump is like Obama in the fact that their first priorities are themselves and not the good of the country. They each will change positions or say what is necessary to advance what they want, even if the population as a whole is against them.
“Too bad true conservatives are too busy blaming true liberals for everything, instead of joining them against the madness, corruption and greed of Trump’s fellow billionaire class.”
I also agree with this statement and its corollary of too bad true progressives are too busy blaming true conservatives for everything instead of joining them against the madness, corruption, and greed of Soros’/Bloomberg’s fellow billionaire class.
I don’t hate billionaires simply because they are rich. I do despise those that wish to change the nation to their idea of what is best simply because they think their wealth and power has somehow enlightened and entitled them to do so.
Dave, I will concede that most of the main-stream media is indeed corporatist-steered and influenced. That said, a vast majority of the items/issues reported and NOT reported overwhelmingly support a leftist world view. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
And you are also deluding yourself if you fail to acknowledge that both the right and the leftwing politicians are often intractably tangled up with corporate interests in order to fund their own campaigns and thus hold on to power. I think you would agree with this point though.
As for your rhetoric about global warming or climate change or whatever the hell they are marketing it as today, the fact is that there are myriads of NON-fossil fuel supported scientists that discount this new religion of the left. Even the founder of Green Peace said that his organization had been taken over by agenda driven non-scientists in support of “global warming”. True science should welcome debate and experimentation to arrive at the truth. Instead, you want to stifle debate and in Al Gore-like fashion proclaim that the debate is settled. This is particularly ironic coming from the creator of a largely debunked pseudo-science academy award winner. That award was about as deserved as Obama’s Nobel Prize.
And quoting such a nut job Moon Unit as Frank Zappa does not add credibility to any argument, my friend.
Trump is like Obama in the fact that their first priorities are themselves and not the good of the country.
This is what I alluded to by, "With Trump it is very easy to see the worst of the other side in his words and temperament."
Why not admit most politicians of both major parties are this narcissistic and corrupted by the economic elite Donor Class? Are you familiar with the Trans Pacific Partnership "trade agreement" by any chance? Besides Obama and some other corpo-dems, most Republicans are behind this corporate written treaty that trumps the laws of the land and shields them from all accountability from our legal system.
You are accusing Obama of the same indifference, and inexperience, regarding working class Americans. Please tell us when the GOP has done anything to benefit the working class and the poor, if you can. Then convince us it is Obama who cares nothing for them.
I'm interested to see your evidence and logic and where they take this.
I do despise those that wish to change the nation to their idea of what is best simply because they think their wealth and power has somehow enlightened and entitled them to do so.
I know you share our concern for corporate personhood and the corruption by their "free speech" money that none of the rest of us have.
I can't help but wonder if you are intentionally excluding the likes of the Koch brothers and Adelson from this critique. If so, then your point rings quite hollow and you are supporting their rule by divine right of wealth.
If you could clarify, I won't suggest IOKIYAR.
So Obama and Trump are of the same ilk? Hmm. One was born on third base and claims to have hit a triple. They other has lived like the rest of us and attained both wealth and the presidency.
One pushed medicaid expansion for the poor, the other spews intolerance and bigotry.
The Obamas gave $60,307 to charitable organizations, like the Illinois Reading Council and Trinity United Church of Christ, in 2006. Barack Obama and his wife donated $240,000 to charity in 2007. In addition to all that money, he has also donated all of his Nobel Peace Prize money, $1.4 million, to charity.
Last year Obama also reported a total of $70,712 — nearly 15 percent of his income — in charitable donations.
Trump? Not nearly that percentage.
But, hey, you see things through a different filter than I do.
overwhelmingly support a leftist world view
I'm afraid I cannot believe you. Sweeping assertions like this are meaningless without evidence, you know.
How about you present some facts to support this assertion?
I would also humbly request the same for this whopper about "myriads of NON-fossil fuel supported scientists"
What is a myriad in your view? Who are some of these people? You do have a long list, I take it.
Are you aware Exxon and other companies research found a connection to climate change and then decided to suppress it and employ PR instead?
Are you aware the Green Peace guy Patrick Moore is a shill for mining and logging corporations? And by the way he was NOT a founder. Please get your facts from a credible source.
Let's see what else we can learn from Mr. Moore.
From an interview:
Moore: Do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer. You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you.
Interviewer: You want to drink some? We have some here.
Moore: I'd be happy to actually... Not, not really, but...
Interviewer: Not really?
Moore: I know it wouldn't hurt me.
Interviewer: If you say so, I have some glyphosate.
Moore: No, I'm not stupid.
Interviewer: OK. So you… So it's dangerous, right?
Moore: No. People try to commit suicide with it and fail, fairly regularly.
Interviewer: Tell the truth. It's dangerous.
Moore: It's not dangerous to humans. No, it's not.
Interviewer: So you are ready to drink one glass of glyphosate?
Moore: No, I'm not an idiot.
THIS is the man you trust more than the scientific consensus?
Not that it matters:
From National Pesticide Information Center:
When high doses were administered to laboratory animals, some studies suggest that glyphosate has carcinogenic potential. Studies on cancer rates in people have provided conflicting results on whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated with cancer. Some studies have associated glyphosate use with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Why does corporate PR ring truer than science to you?
I contend you don't want to learn what you don't want to know.
Want to know what really stifles debate? Belief in corporate PR and a global conspiracy of evil climate scientists really do the trick.
Speaking of Greenpeace, they note one famous climate change denier is rather oily:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/
The Heartland Institute, a bastion of climate-change suspicion, has given him the “Courage in Defense of Science Award...Greenpeace released a batch of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that showed Soon received more than $1.2 million from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Koch brothers again. What s surprise.
As for Frank Zappa, what exactly is so "nut job" about the quote?
You probably don't know it, but Frank was not only a brilliant composer, but very anti-drugs throughout his life. How nuts is that?
But, you're the expert, I guess.
While I appreciate your comments, you don't have to address all my questions and comments. I'm just presenting valid and honest concerns from my perspective that don't support your claims.
Dave Dubya to T. Paine: "As for Frank Zappa, what exactly is so 'nut job' about the quote?"
I would guess that T. Paine believes Frank Zappa is a "nut job" because he vehemently objects to the "truthiness" of the Zappa quotation. It would stand to reason. Having served proudly in the military, he undoubtedly takes it as a personal affront towards not only himself but also the military branches at-large. Which, unfortunately, creates the broad crevasse in seeking common ground and understanding.
Because T. Paine, along with undoubtedly millions of other conservatives who have also served and would probably feel the same personal affront, can't separate his ego-driven sense of self-worth and importance from the truth -- from the facts that are becoming increasingly evident as each day passes -- he instead blames the opposing party in office and ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
But, than again, maybe T. Paine just abhors long hair on men. ;-)
Dave Dubya to T. Paine: "As for Frank Zappa, what exactly is so 'nut job' about the quote?"
I would guess that T. Paine believes Frank Zappa is a "nut job" because he vehemently objects to the "truthiness" of the Zappa quotation. It would stand to reason. Having served proudly in the military, he undoubtedly takes it as a personal affront towards not only himself but also the military branches at-large. Which, unfortunately, creates the broad crevasse in seeking common ground and understanding.
Because T. Paine, along with undoubtedly millions of other conservatives who have also served and would probably feel the same personal affront, can't separate his ego-driven sense of self-worth and importance from the truth -- from the facts that are becoming increasingly evident as each day passes -- he instead blames the opposing party in office and ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
But, than again, maybe T. Paine just abhors long hair on men. ;-)
JG,
I think you may have answered for TP as well as anyone could.
I suppose if you never met a war you didn't like, Frank's satire could easily be missed, and be perceived as "nut job" or even hostile.
I think it has been demonstrated that the folks on the Right have a somewhat lesser grasp of satire and humor in general as we have on the other end of the spectrum. I believe studies have indicated this too, besides the fact Dennis Miller has fallen to being a lame sniping stooge for FOX.
Comics from Lenny Bruce to George Carlin were censored or demonized by the Right.
It's that questioning authority thing they hate, unless its Democrats being questioned.
After all, criticizing the with-us-or-against-us "war president" before 2009 was treason.
Now it is patriotic.
God bless the troops. And may the next GOP president start a new war and send them to die for our "freedom".
Note to conservatives: Satire above.
Dave Dubya: "Note to conservatives: Satire above."
LOL...and such a disclaimer is so appropriate. The following is so true:
“A man is angry at a libel because it is false, but at a satire because it is true.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Here's a Zappa quote I really like:
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
Anna, could there be anything more right-on-the-money? Because we're beginning to really see through the illusion, the powers-that-be are removing the scenery more and more each day. Sheldon Wolin talks about this in reference to his great work, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.
When the managing aspect of our inverted totalitarian state begins coming apart at the seams, which it is, the more common notions of what we traditionally think of as "totalitarianism" starts rearing its ugly head. As you know, this is becoming more apparent and will continue to escalate.
Zappa was very intuitive. He saw "the man behind the curtain" way before most. Not bad for a "nut job", huh? (Disclaimer to conservatives: This last sentence is satire.)
It's totally spot-on, isn't it? And I also think that the scenery will come down faster than many would believe, once it starts coming down. The creeping phase of creeping fascism is only going to last so long.
Socialists will tell you all public goods (Things that benefit everyone owned by the government) are socialist. Roads, the Army, the fire department. Those are their examples.
No Socialists, that isn't true and you are lying to people... like you always do. They offer the false choice between anarchy and no public goods at all, or their total control of not only public but private goods. That is, private property and profits.
Public goods are not socialism. Socialism at its core is a system which is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. The reason socialism frequently results in mass death, is because it is a system based on sacrifice. Our current system is based on exchange ... you give something to get something hopefully by choice and at bare minimum with compensation. Socialism is based on the premise that it is good for people to sacrifice - to give more than they want to or what the individual deems he or she can without a "selfish" reward. This becoming acceptable or worse virtuous leads to people sacrificing which leads to leaders sacrificing their subjects which results in death and destruction. This is why socialist governments have murdered over 118 million people in the last 100 years. Sacrifice sounds nice because people confuse it with charity. It isn't charity. Charity is when you choose to give something to someone else YOU deem needs it for whatever reason you decide. Socialism is when you give what someone else deems "enough" with no choice in the matter with someone else being the deciding factor. Its when the government comes and takes most of what you have, and gives it to somebody they think deserves it more. If individuals were left with choice not enough subjects wold give the fruits of their labor for nothing... so coercion is vital and force must be used. Key to socialism's operation is that you don't decide what you can afford to give, someone else does. Whether the person or group deciding is a dictator (Communism) or elected (Democratic Socialism) won't make much difference to you when they come and take your house and all your money if you are rich or force you to work for them if you are poor. Socialism is the doctrine that people have no right to exist for their own sake, that their life and work do not belong to them, but belong to society, that the only justification of existence is service to society, and that society may dispose of you in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. That is antithetical to the Constitutional Republic we live in today, which tells us individual rights trump public good. In today's world we live in, in the United States the individual is valued more than the group. In socialism, the group is valued over the individual.
The alleged goals of socialism are: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is people's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly by how "socialist" the nation. Either way, those countries are always WORSE off than they started economically, less free than when they started. The people of England are WORSE OFF after a small degree of socialism. The people of Norway are WORSE OFF after a moderate amount of it. The people of China are much WORSE OFF after a heavy dose, and the people of North Korea are DEAD after a massive one. In all those cases, a progressively smaller government elite lives proportionately better as the collective share suffering more equally, the more socialist a country becomes. Socialists ALWAYS lie. They lie to you and tell you THIS TIME IT WILL WORK, THIS WAY IT WILL WORK. They point to nations with moderate socialism and claim it as success. They leave out that their example would be much more successful without socialism dragging it down. They will universally never mention the OTHER EXAMPLES of socialism, countries who turned to socialist command economies who have on a 100% basis lead to death camps, mass murder, and total loss of human rights. They will never admit the truth, that all the problems of their example nations like Denmark and Norway are caused by their fellow socialists. Socialists by their nature are liars who must use lies to convince you because there is no truth they can point to. The only truth to socialism is that it is an economic system that has slaughtered more human beings than any other system in man's history. Socialism from Denmark to North Korea only benefits one class of people. Those highly placed who work for the government. It gives those high in government the control over you they've never had, and access to most if not all of your money and property to your disadvantage at the cost of your individual rights. The rest of us simply suffer under it, equally. Capitalism unequally distributes wealth, Socialism unequally distributes misery.
Beliefs of a religious cult are quite similar to fringe far Right political beliefs. All who disagree are evil liars. They alone have all the answers, for they alone are “real Americans” who have exclusive rights to interpret the Constitution to fit their beliefs. “Regulation of commerce and general welfare” are thorns in their side that pop their cult beliefs like balloons, releasing nothing but hot air.
Socialism from Denmark to North Korea only benefits one class of people. Whether the person or group deciding is a dictator (Communism) or elected (Democratic Socialism) won't make much difference to you when they come and take your house and all your money if you are rich or force you to work for them if you are poor. Socialism is the doctrine that people have no right to exist for their own sake, Socialists ALWAYS lie.
Yes, and the Kochs/Republicans always tell the truth. LOL!! Free has demonization down pat. He’s a good little fascistic authoritarian that way.
From this disconnected, illogical babble we can deduce Free’s indoctrinated narrow definition of socialism. (It all boils down to Stalinist communism to his cult)
“Socialism is, or leads to, a totalitarian dictatorship with state owned means of production and no property rights or civil liberties for individuals.”
This is purely John Birch, far Right, Cold War propaganda. We see the usual blaming of socialism for the destruction of humanity that actually resulted from nationalism, dictatorships, militarism, economic plunder, religion, and racism, all of which are Right Wing characteristics.
It was de-regulated capitalism, not socialism, that brought about the Great Depression and the Bush financial collapse and Great Recession. The victims stomped by the malicious, cold-blooded, calculated, hob-nailed boot of failed capitalism are fed and given health care by socialism. I doubt this is the "one class of people" Free's propaganda wants us to believe.
These facts don’t align with the propaganda.
More proof Republicans want to take us back…waaaay back, to Medieval times.
MUIR: … Mr. Trump, you said not only does it work, but that you’d bring it back.
TRUMP: “Well, I’ll tell you what. In the Middle East, we have people chopping the heads off Christians, we have people chopping the heads off many other people. We have things that we have never seen before — as a group, we have never seen before, what’s happening right now.
The medieval times — I mean, we studied medieval times — not since medieval times have people seen what’s going on. I would bring back waterboarding and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”
This was greeted with ecstatic applause from the audience.
Still think it will be Bush to appease corp elites? Hahahhaha
Free0352: "Capitalism unequally distributes wealth, Socialism unequally distributes misery."
Unfortunately, life in this incarnate life swings toward misery most of the time -- no matter the economic system that dominates. It's the human condition. If socialism levels the playing field for all players alike, I'll side with your second option. It's the only way a true middle-class can grow and flourish.
Welcome back, army boy! Missed the laughs you provided! ;-)
Post a Comment