Kansas Crimson

No. I don't know the answer. Please tell me.

First let's review the definition of socialism:



so·cial·ism

/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun

noun: socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Similar:

leftism

Fabianism

syndicalism

consumer socialism

utopian socialism

welfarism

communism

Bolshevism

radicalism

militancy

progressivism

social democracy

laborism

Marxism

Leninism

Marxism–Leninism

neo-Marxism

Trotskyism

Maoism

Opposite:

conservatism

policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.


(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term socialism refers to any system in which the production and distribution of goods and services is a shared responsibility of a group of people. Socialism is based upon economic and political theories that advocate for collectivism. In a state of socialism, there is no privately owned property

So ousdahl:

Which policies are you speaking of?

Or simply misapplying corporate tax cuts and farm subsidies as socialism?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:29 am No. I don't know the answer. Please tell me.

OK for real.

In terms of campaign rhetoric, is it worth it for opponents to paint Trump and his policies as sweetheart deals for corporations and rich folks that have done little to actually benefit average joes?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:35 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:29 am No. I don't know the answer. Please tell me.

OK for real.

In terms of campaign rhetoric, is it worth it for opponents to paint Trump and his policies as sweetheart deals for corporations and rich folks that have done little to actually benefit average joes?

What are Trump's socialist policies?

In terms of campaign rhetoric, framing his tax plan as such...

Ah, bait and switch.

Also, how does framing his tax plan as a boost to corporate America qualify as socialist?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:42 am Ah, bait and switch.

Also, how does framing his tax plan as a boost to corporate America qualify as socialist?

Get ready for another question....

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:59 pmHilarious.

How so?

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:56 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:59 pmHilarious.

How so?

A partisan chameleon who has drifted between parties, who has a history of racism and of sexual harassment, who is using his billions to buy the nomination of a party he didn't belong to until deciding to run for POTUS and then to buy the presidency.

He's Trump, only not.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:04 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:56 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:59 pmHilarious.

How so?

A partisan chameleon who has drifted between parties, who has a history of racism and of sexual harassment, who is using his billions to buy the nomination of a party he didn't belong to until deciding to run for POTUS and then to buy the presidency.

He's Trump, only not.

He's the version of Trump that the Dems will use to try to get rid of the Trump they loathe so maniacally. You know, replace what we hate with a doppelganger - but OUR doppelganger. SMH.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:04 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:56 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:59 pmHilarious.

How so?

A partisan chameleon who has drifted between parties, who has a history of racism and of sexual harassment, who is using his billions to buy the nomination of a party he didn't belong to until deciding to run for POTUS and then to buy the presidency.

He's Trump, only not.

Right. But without the history of abusing the power of the Presidency. Or of purposely dividing the nation. Or the vindictiveness (at least not to a Trumpian level).

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:36 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:04 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:56 am

How so?

A partisan chameleon who has drifted between parties, who has a history of racism and of sexual harassment, who is using his billions to buy the nomination of a party he didn't belong to until deciding to run for POTUS and then to buy the presidency.

He's Trump, only not.

Right. But without the history of abusing the power of the Presidency. Or of purposely dividing the nation. Or the vindictiveness (at least not to a Trumpian level).

Beg to differ.

Posters here are sympathetic because he divides the nation along line they favor (guns, most notably), but he has done far more to divide the nation that pre-presidency Trump could ever have imagined.

Additionally, people who've worked for him will differ with you on the vindictiveness part.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bloombe ... en-2019-11

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... exism.html


Like I said, hilarious.

I like him because he is a successful businessman ( you know the type that don't go bankrupt all the time) and since all politicians are crooks and liars maybe we should give a successful businessman a shot at running things. How could it be worse?

The bankrupt stuff is a little silly. Forbes estimated his net worth at $3.1B in 2019. They weren't personal bankruptcies. But you know that.

If Bloomy is the one they force in, I'll have to find another option. No voting for the people that won't rock the boat.

His adds are on TV here every 15min it seems. Whole add is video and audio of Obama. He's going to latch onto that it seems.

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:05 pm How could it be worse?

I kinda see why he'd appeal to you.

Bloomberg is offering the politics of the gentry liberals who have dominated the party’s big-dollar fundraising in recent decades....

As mayor of New York, Bloomberg’s approach—in addition to building on Rudy Giuliani’s law-and-order regime—was to shape the city as “a luxury product” shaped by the interests and investments of his fellow billionaires. Under his watch, the city moved to the tune of oligarchy, constructing ever more expensive apartment structures, often encouraged by heavily discounted property taxes and with lots of breaks for new lavish new corporate offices.

In contrast, the city’s middle-class neighborhoods shrank, most precipitously in Manhattan, while those of the rich and poor grew. The city’s inequality burgeoned, ranking among the most pronounced in the country now. The very feel of the city changed as long-standing neighborhood retail fell from soaring rents, with once cherished outlets either replaced by chains, “pop-ups” or simply abandoned, a form of “high rent blight.” Gone increasingly are both the historic neighborhoods and blue-collar commerce areas—the food, fish, flower, and other markets—that had been part of the city’s economic culture for centuries.

In the process, he steadily weakened the city’s once diverse, if chaotic character into plutocratic-driven monoculture. His disinterest in the will of the voters, as captured in his jihad against sugar and his insistence of ever more stop and frisk policing even as popular opposition to it grew along with its overuse, was in many ways policy made possible by the power implicit in his wealth, a function of his fortune.

Another mayor with such an agenda would have faced major opposition. But as Sol Stern and Fred Siegel wrote in 2011, "the most discomfiting aspect of the Bloomberg mayoralty” was his ability to curb criticism by handing out what Ben Smith of BuzzFeed called ”protection money” to the city’s many nonprofits, activist groups, religious and community associations. Bloomberg even cleverly uses his largesse to win over journalists, offering hugely remunerative salaries to those willing to follow his party line....

A Bloomberg presidency would be very different from this one. Trump is annoying but has scaled back the power of the administrative state. Bloomberg would likely seek to expand federal power to dictate the minutiae of everyday life in terms of diet, how we use energy, the kind of houses we live in and how we get to work.

And for all of Trump’s conflicts as the chief executive of both the United States of America and the Trump Organization, his businesses have little influence on anything beyond some slivers of the real-estate market.

Yes, Trump roars like an authoritarian, and admires those with power—but that’s a trait he shares with Bloomberg, who recently made the preposterous claim that China’s Xi Jinping is “not a dictator.” He portrays the communist regime, noted New York magazine as “ecologically friendly, democratically accountable, and invulnerable to the threat of revolution.” Of course, this is the same Bloomberg whose news operation gave up on reporting on corruption in China when that reporting started damaging the terminal sales that made his fortune.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/you-think ... ref=scroll

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:24 pm And for all of Trump’s conflicts as the chief executive of both the United States of America and the Trump Organization, his businesses have little influence on anything beyond some slivers of the real-estate market.

I would disagree with this statement, while the rest of the thesis seems reasonable. Charging governmental agencies "full price" for events at Trump Organization owned properties and other self dealing is more than just "little influence"

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:44 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:24 pm And for all of Trump’s conflicts as the chief executive of both the United States of America and the Trump Organization, his businesses have little influence on anything beyond some slivers of the real-estate market.

I would disagree with this statement, while the rest of the thesis seems reasonable. Charging governmental agencies "full price" for events at Trump Organization owned properties and other self dealing is more than just "little influence"

A fair point.

And one of the weirdest, ugliest, pettiest manifestations of Trump's corruption.