2024 Republican candidates beside Trump

"they just didn't do socialism right. We totally know the way now"

So we'll add history to the growing list of things you don't understand.
England has a thousand year streak going.
France has been around for awhile.
Norway?
Sweden?
Spain?
What's your point?
 
Which of those countries has had the same form of government without a revolution for more than 200 years?
He didn't say a word about government, he said nations.
Governments evolve......as they should.
You guys are amusing.
 
Which of those countries has had the same form of government without a revolution for more than 200 years?
And you guys are claiming those revolutions started because the government became to socialistic?
And I'm the one who doesn't know history.............LMFAO
 
He didn't say a word about government, he said nations.
Governments evolve......as they should.
You guys are amusing.

And none of the countries you listed have been socialist or practiced democratic socialism for more than 100 years and almost all of the ones you listed are dependent on our protection.
 
And none of the countries you listed have been socialist or practiced democratic socialism for more than 100 years and almost all of the ones you listed are dependent on our protection.
All of the countries I listed are more socialistic than the US. And have been around longer than us.
 
And you guys are claiming those revolutions started because the government became to socialistic?
And I'm the one who doesn't know history.............LMFAO
Whoa there, chief. Pj mentioned nations and YOU brought up those countries as having "streaks" in response to socialism hasn't worked. The only one who has linked the socialism discussion with those countries is you.
 
Whoa there, chief. Pj mentioned nations and YOU brought up those countries as having "streaks" in response to socialism hasn't worked. The only one who has linked the socialism discussion with those countries is you.
lol....there sparky.
I asked for him, or anyone, to name "nations" and got zilch as a response.

That pretty much says it all.
 
All of the countries I listed are more socialistic than the US. And have been around longer than us.

Umm no they haven't, if you are arguing that the land existed there and people sharing a common culture or heritage were living there then yes they "existed" before the US. However, the French government has been overthrown/conquered several times including most recently during WW2. Norway was part of Denmark until the early 19th century. England and Spain lurched from monarch to monarch for most of their existence with warring periods in between. It's kind of hard to argue their "existence" when they couldn't agree upon a leader. By your logic, Germany has existed for nearly 1500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire due to Germanic tribes conquering much of Northern Europe.
 
lol....there sparky.
I asked for him, or anyone, to name "nations" and got zilch as a response.

That pretty much says it all.

There hasn't been a form of government/economic system that has produced more sustained wealth for more individuals over the last 200 years than the US. It is a simple fact. You can argue that mercantilism/imperialism created more wealth for the monarchs in England, France, and Spain but that is an antiquated system. The most powerful economic nation in Europe is modeled after the US and that is Germany. The most powerful economic nations in Asia, outside of China's forced labor system but even they evolved away from Communism, are South Korea and Japan. Both were modeled after the US economies. Yes there are some very wealthy Middle Eastern nations that relatively small populations with large oil reserves but that isn't duplicable. There really is nothing to debate
 
"they just didn't do socialism right. We totally know the way now"

So we'll add history to the growing list of things you don't understand.

There is a lot of ambiguity in determining who historically is socialist and who is not. Socialism just means government controls the means of production. Basically, every country has some element of that, so are we all socialists? If it's the government controlling all the means of production, then nobody is socialist. Neither ends of that spectrum are useful for conversation, so then we must subjectively determine who is socialist enough in our eyes to count as a socialist.

Look at the US...education is not only a huge industry, but it's one of the most important areas of life. Something like 95% of K-12 education is provided by the government and the government tries to regulate the other 5%. Government is the means of production. Is that enough to qualify us as socialist? Why or why not?

Government provides basically all the means of production in law enforcement and military defense.

We accept this stuff as default and never stop to think about what label to apply to it.
 
There hasn't been a form of government/economic system that has produced more sustained wealth for more individuals over the last 200 years than the US. It is a simple fact. You can argue that mercantilism/imperialism created more wealth for the monarchs in England, France, and Spain but that is an antiquated system. The most powerful economic nation in Europe is modeled after the US and that is Germany. The most powerful economic nations in Asia, outside of China's forced labor system but even they evolved away from Communism, are South Korea and Japan. Both were modeled after the US economies. Yes there are some very wealthy Middle Eastern nations that relatively small populations with large oil reserves but that isn't duplicable. There really is nothing to debate
What is it you think I am trying to debate?
I was responding to this post.
"There's a reason no nation lasts forever. This move left will essentially end our great experiment if allowed to continue"

It sounds as if he is implying that nations collapse because they move to far left.
I just asked for examples.
 
Yes. Wasted. If you want to rally the Libertarian base and try to become a legitimate threat to actually win an election sometime in the future, knock yourself out. I'm all for it. However, until that happens, when it comes to the general election, any vote for a third party candidate is currently a wasted vote. You may as well have not voted at all.
Until the libertarians get serious about being something other than the „legalize drugs“ party as their main plank, I will continue to treat them as a joke. You win not by creating a whole party structure from the ground up. You win by taking over and co-opting one of the two existing parties. The left had no problem bringing the Democrat party to the left of Stalin. Why do conservatives feel they cannot pull the GOP similarly to the right?
 
What is it you think I am trying to debate?
I was responding to this post.
"There's a reason no nation lasts forever. This move left will essentially end our great experiment if allowed to continue"

It sounds as if he is implying that nations collapse because they move to far left.
I just asked for examples.

Soviet Union, Greece, Argentina,
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
But not as democratic socialist or socialist states.

Don't engage. I quit last night after realizing it's that thing about arguing with fools and being beaten when they drag you down to their level. It's a canned argument; luther and his kind will drag out the "are you still beating your wife" kind of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88

VN Store



Back
Top