American Politics

[kkck]

Well, socialism and communism are in fact different things. Just like how socialism and social democracy are in fact different things. But sure, let's throw nuance into the furnace...

 

[Sanity Check]

And why do you feel like that's information worth keeping to yourself?

I read thousands upon thousands of articles and blogs, over a period of years, to accidentally stumble across the reason Bernie was cancelled by democrats.

I'll keep it as a sign of being one of the few who does their due diligence.

So then you'd prefer if he raised your taxes then, gotcha.

Democrats are the party of "free stuff" for all.

Free stuff is always paid for with tax hikes.

Its not hard to see where this is going?

 

[ninjabot]

Water is *obviously* completely different from the condition of being wet.

Just as socialism is *obviously* completely different from communism.

(Common democrat themes)





I don't even want to debate any of this.

Why are you trying to pull me into it.

I don't want to debate either. I wouldn't keep pushing if you'd just answer honestly. You could've said:

"Just because someone is on the left doesn't mean they value the same policies as another person on the left.", and we'd have been done. Or you could've said:

"Everyone on the left believes all the same things. Everyone on the left is a democrat with no nuance whatsover" and we'd have been done there as well.

 

[Sanity Check]

Well, socialism and communism are in fact different things. Just like how socialism and social democracy are in fact different things. But sure, let's throw nuance into the furnace...

Communism is derived from the word communal or community.

Socialism derives from the word social.

Both words are synonyms and mean the same thing.

Which makes it puzzling for them to be considered completely different by some.

As if water was a completely different thing from being wet.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 31, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 31, 2022 ---

I don't want to debate either. I wouldn't keep pushing if you'd just answer honestly. You could've said:

"Just because someone is on the left doesn't mean they value the same policies as another person on the left.", and we'd have been done. Or you could've said:

"Everyone on the left believes all the same things. Everyone on the left is a democrat with no nuance whatsover" and we'd have been done there as well.

I've always said republicans are united around God, guns and the Constitution.

Democrats have their own unifying forces, which they share in common.

Democrat Presidents share similar traits as well. It wasn't an attack.

Politics is always about bringing disparate groups of people together and uniting them under a single banner.

There isn't a group or demographic who is exempt from this precedent AFAIK.

 

[xi0]

I read thousands upon thousands of articles and blogs, over a period of years, to accidentally stumble across the reason Bernie was cancelled by democrats.

I'll keep it as a sign of being one of the few who does their due diligence.

You accidentally stumbled upon what then? You know keeping it to yourself just looks like you're avoiding criticism right?

Remind me how this isn't about your own ego again?

Democrats are the party of "free stuff" for all.

Free stuff is always paid for with tax hikes.

Its not hard to see where this is going?

Do you appreciate Biden not wanting to raise your taxes or not?

Or is every idea he's ever had been bad?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[kkck]

Communism is derived from the word communal or community.

Socialism derives from the word social.

Both words are synonyms and mean the same thing.

Which makes it puzzling for them to be considered completely different by some.

As if water was a completely different thing from being wet.

Except... this is wrong? You are arguing the word's etymology makes them synonyms. Which... is obviously wrong. It's not how words or policy works. Come on man, at least put some effort into it.

 

[xi0]

Which makes it puzzling for them to be considered completely different by some.

As if water was a completely different thing from being wet.

Here is a very easily digestible comparison that demonstrates the differences between the two.

In Communism, the state owns and controls all resources, property, and the means of production. The individual owns nothing.

In Socialism, there is equal ownership of these things by all citizens and resources are allocated via a Democratically-elected government.

Do you see how they're different?

 

[Sanity Check]

You accidentally stumbled upon what then? You know keeping it to yourself just looks like you're avoiding criticism right?

Remind me how this isn't about your own ego again?

Its not a world shattering revelation and irrelevant within the grand scheme of things.

Do you appreciate Biden not wanting to raise your taxes or not?

Or is every idea he's ever had been bad?

You can't have it both ways.

Some believe government is the best creator of jobs, innovation and progress, others say free markets do it better.

If government is the better option, it makes sense to pay higher taxes to reap better rewards.

But not everyone feels this way, some prefer tax cuts to devote a larger portion of funds to free markets which they believe is better for job markets, economic growth and progress.

I look at NASA (government) and Space X (free markets) before making a choice on what I think is ideal.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 31, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 31, 2022 ---

Except... this is wrong? You are arguing the word's etymology makes them synonyms. Which... is obviously wrong. It's not how words or policy works. Come on man, at least put some effort into it.

Right.

I'll have to try hard next time.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 31, 2022 ---

In Socialism, there is equal ownership of these things by all citizens and resources are allocated via a Democratically-elected government.

There have been many social experiments who tried this in small community settings.

It never worked.

Some work harder and do more than others, and they're never happy receiving the same reward as someone who contributed less.

 

[xi0]

Its not a world shattering revelation and irrelevant within the grand scheme of things.

Then why mention it at all?

Some believe government is the best creator of jobs, innovation and progress, others say free markets do it better.

If government is the better option, it makes sense to pay higher taxes to reap better rewards.

But not everyone feels this way, some prefer tax cuts to devote a larger portion of funds to free markets which they believe is better for job markets, economic growth and progress.

I look at NASA (government) and Space X (free markets) before making a choice on what I think is ideal.

The "free market" argument is about a capitalist organization of the economy. In a government like ours, the relationship is symbiotic, so uncoupling them is pretty pointless when the government has always hired private industry for things, as well as subsidized them for, you guessed it, the sake of innovation. Or you know, funded them with corporate socialism because like I already said, the relationship is symbiotic and one relies on the other.

Also, there are plenty of things the free market can't provide, that the government can, so... again, the comparison is moot.

However, this still has nothing to do with whether you're happy Biden is saying he won't raise your taxes or not.

There have been many social experiments who tried this in small community settings.

It never worked.

Some work harder and do more than others, and they're never happy receiving the same reward as someone who contributed less.

Right... but that has nothing to do with the meaning of words, does it?

Regardless of what you think about the implications of said words, they're still quite different.

 

[DeadCosmos]

Are you trolling here, or do you think you're making some sort of cogent point?

Lynching was made a hate crime, not a crime. Killing people has always been a crime lol

the latter, doesn't help society at all.

I genuinely doubt he cares at all about what Biden has done in the white house because he never engages with comments about good things he's done.

There are comments about good things he has done? Consider me surprised!

 

[M3J]

Yes. It's as simple as looking at what policies they claimed to support and then comparing them. How would you feel if I claimed Mitt Romney and David Duke were the same policy wise just because both are Republican?

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 31, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 31, 2022 ---

I bet some shady shit behind scenes has him upset. Kinda like how Giuliani kept mentioning he was prepared for if Trump backstabs him. That he has an "insurance policy".

But he outed a group of politicians rather than one person, that's pretty dumb.

Why do you despise the idea of honesty so much?

which republican likes honesty tho?

And he's probably trolling.

Communism is derived from the word communal or community.

Socialism derives from the word social.

Both words are synonyms and mean the same thing.

so like most republicans, you don't understand a thing about communism or socialism.

Unless you're not this obtuse, and you're just trolling to make fun of republicans.

I've always said republicans are united around God, guns and the Constitution.

and you're wrong.

 

[DeadCosmos]

got money for ice cream but none for us staying at home and stopping the spread? Cmon man!

 

[xi0]

the latter, doesn't help society at all.

Hate crime legislation doesn't help society at all?

So if someone lynches a black person, a penalty for conspiring to do that is somehow a bad thing? Can you explain that to me please?

The government has been trying for over 100 years to make it a federal hate crime. If it had no value, why try that long?

 

[kkck]

ok, I am a little lost here. Wouldn't lynching be murder even without an anti lynching law? Is someone getting away with lynching nowadays over some weird technicality?

 

[xi0]

ok, I am a little lost here. Wouldn't lynching be murder even without an anti lynching law? Is someone getting away with lynching nowadays over some weird technicality?

The criminal definition of lynching involves conspiracy to kill by a group. There's countless examples of people involved in lynching not only not being convicted, but not even charged. This legislation was named after Emmett Till, a pretty famous example of this. When a black teenager was killed by a group of people for whistling at a white woman. None of the people charged were found guilty by an all white jury and later the men admitted to killing him and the woman he supposedly harassed also admitted he didn't do anything to her.

People can of course call it symbolic if they want, but it basically ensures that any member of a group involved in a conspiracy to harm someone motivated by bias is guaranteed jail time under federal law.

 

[DeadCosmos]

Hate crime legislation doesn't help society at all?

So if someone lynches a black person, a penalty for conspiring to do that is somehow a bad thing? Can you explain that to me please?

The government has been trying for over 100 years to make it a federal hate crime. If it had no value, why try that long?

No, we already got hate crime legislation and society is still crumbling away. Yeah, a penalty for conspiring to lynch a ***** person is a bad thing because it shows that your community/civilization is poor at preventing the problem in the first place. If a person got lynched, the crime had already taken place, society's "justice" won't bring the person back. Penalty can be many different things, and not even mean what it's supposed to, some people see a penalty as a bad thing and others see it as a good thing.

They would try that long because the government doesn't help society!

 

[xi0]

No, we already got hate crime legislation and society is still crumbling away. Yeah, a penalty for conspiring to lynch a ***** person is a bad thing because it shows that your community/civilization is poor at preventing the problem in the first place. If a person got lynched, the crime had already taken place, society's "justice" won't bring the person back. Penalty can be many different things, and not even mean what it's supposed to, some people see a penalty as a bad thing and others see it as a good thing.

They would try that long because the government doesn't help society!

Laws against crimes are bad because they can't be prevented?

Justice is never about undoing crimes. If they could be undone, then there would be nothing to seek justice for.

 

[kkck]

The criminal definition of lynching involves conspiracy to kill by a group. There's countless examples of people involved in lynching not only not being convicted, but not even charged. This legislation was named after Emmett Till, a pretty famous example of this. When a black teenager was killed by a group of people for whistling at a white woman. None of the people charged were found guilty by an all white jury and later the men admitted to killing him and the woman he supposedly harassed also admitted he didn't do anything to her.

People can of course call it symbolic if they want, but it basically ensures that any member of a group involved in a conspiracy to harm someone motivated by bias is guaranteed jail time under federal law.

But... wouldn't already existing laws cover that? Murder by definition is premeditated. Does creating a new type of murder under federal law in any way address endemic race based injustice?

 

[DeadCosmos]

Laws against crimes are bad because they can't be prevented?

Yes

 

[xi0]

But... wouldn't already existing laws cover that? Murder by definition is premeditated. Does creating a new type of murder under federal law in any way address endemic race based injustice?

It isn't just murder, and it doesn't only cover murder either. Lynching doesn't have to result in death. I'll quote the bill here

• (5) LYNCHING.—Whoever conspires to commit any offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall, if death or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 2246 of this title) results from the offense, be imprisoned for not more than 30 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.
• (6) OTHER CONSPIRACIES.—Whoever conspires to commit any offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall, if death or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 2246 of this title) results from the offense, or if the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, be imprisoned for not more than 30 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.

Federal law is separate from state or even municipal laws. Keep in mind that with the Emmett Till case, double jeopardy was a factor that allowed the killers to admit to their crimes and face no consequences. Being charged with a crime in a state court and being acquitted does not protect you from being charged in federal court.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 31, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 31, 2022 ---

Yes

Are you an anarchist?