Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

German guy said:

Germany today is not socialist, although some American righties call it that way.

On that Germany which everybody calls socialist, which even called itself socialist, -- the East German GDR -- I agree with you.

Click to expand...

Everyone calls socialist? I disagree. The countries of the old eastern bloc were not and most never were socialist. Democracy is a prerequisite of socialism. No democracy, no socialism. How one can "secure for the worker the full fruits of his labour and the most equitable distribution" of said fruits without the workers having the decision-making power is the clincher.

All these posters who are throwing out random supposed definitions of socialism have never linked to proof that these facets are actually necessary elements of socialist ideology. It's like describing all of conservative using aspects and attitudes of the Iranian Mullahs. There is no doubting that their social policies are conservative, but does that make them Conservative?

Peter Grimm said:

This question is mainly aimed at people on here who claim to be socialists.

Have you ever lived in a socialist country? Do you have any personal experience with socialism?

Click to expand...

Could you define and list some examples or what you mean when you say "socialist country"? With labels like socialism, communism, Nazi, tyranny, regime, etc. being thrown around in the public square not in efforts to contribute to rational discussion on real issues but instead to demonize by use of dishonest emotional manipulation in pursuit of advancing a political agenda, I personally have a hard time understanding what people mean by these terms anymore.

Andalublue said:

I grew up in a socialist country that ceased being one in the 1980s.

Through socialist policies I received an education that my parents couldn't have dreamed of. I had my life saved twice by a 100% socialised health service and when I was out of work after college, I was kept out of the soup kitchens by a welfare state that supported me until I found a job and proceeded to begin to repay that socialist state.

Click to expand...

Those golden days when inflation was as high as kite, there was mass unemployment, days without electricty (leaving old people dying of hypothermia), continuous strikes, uncollected garbage strewn across streets & bussinesses folding faster than a speeding bullet?

Those halcyon days when the currency was devalued, gold reserves sold off & Britain had to crawl on bended knee to beg money off foreign banks?

I'm glad you enjoyed it but Ive heard many describe it as hell.

Smeagol said:

Could you define and list some examples or what you mean when you say "socialist country"? With labels like socialism, communism, Nazi, tyranny, regime, etc. being thrown around in the public square not in efforts to contribute to rational discussion on real issues but instead to demonize by use of dishonest emotional manipulation in pursuit of advancing a political agenda, I personally have a hard time understanding what people mean by these terms anymore.

Click to expand...

Well, what people just in this one thread have used to define socialism amount to:

its just a clever rouse[sic] to confuse the people. - Ernst Post #4

REAL socialism is government owned farms, industries, etc... think USSR. - Peter G Post #11

the more laws and regulations we create to protect ourselves....the more laws and regulations we have to create to protect ourselves from the laws and regulations that we already created....and after we have too many laws and regulations, we have entered something very close to socialism. - Melons Post #12

Through socialist policies I received an education that my parents couldn't have dreamed of. I had my life saved twice by a 100% socialised health service and when I was out of work after college, I was kept out of the soup kitchens by a welfare state that supported me until I found a job and proceeded to begin to repay that socialist state, through taxes, for my education, health and benefits. - Me Post #19

socialism is workers owning the surplus of their labor. (Or means of production.) Not government-ownership of the economy. - DinoDudeEpic Post #24

Socialism doesn't imply any singular ideology. - Waas Post #29

Socialism's functional definition these days is "whatever I don't like." - Obvious Child Post #38

socialism is force, ...socialism takes from the individual without his or her permission, and redistributes it too other people not institutions for the public good for every one( ie .the general welfare of a state)..socialism, which gives more power to government too be the provider. - Ernst Post #47

socialist is more concerned with control and power, a Marxist is more concerned of up lifting the down trodden and poor --->creating equality in every aspect of life, believe it or not democracy does too, will is why it is bad, because it removes individual liberty. - Ernst Post #49

You're right, ask 100 people what socialism is and you'll get 500 different answers. I know what I mean when I say 'socialism' and some, but not all, of that is good.

Paul Austin said:

Those golden days when inflation was as high as kite, there was mass unemployment, days without electricty (leaving old people dying of hypothermia), continuous strikes, uncollected garbage strewn across streets & bussinesses folding faster than a speeding bullet?

Those halcyon days when the currency was devalued, gold reserves sold off & Britain had to crawl on bended knee to beg money off foreign banks?

Click to expand...

How very different from these halcyon days we're living through now. Different in that mass unemployment was about half what it is now and this after the stats were fixed to exclude several groups from the stats that were included in the Seventies. People are still dying of hypothermia, not due to strikes but due to fuel poverty created by the profiteering of corporations. Strikes happened and passed, profiteering is for life.

I'm glad you enjoyed it but Ive heard many describe it as hell.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you think that things are so heavenly now.

We are all socialist. We do not survive otherwise.

We are soft bodied, slow footed mammals without serviceable claws, horns or fangs and would be only so much tasty meat if not for the fact we form collectives.

Andalublue said:

Well, what people just in this one thread have used to define socialism amount to:

its just a clever rouse[sic] to confuse the people. - Ernst Post #4

REAL socialism is government owned farms, industries, etc... think USSR. - Peter G Post #11

the more laws and regulations we create to protect ourselves....the more laws and regulations we have to create to protect ourselves from the laws and regulations that we already created....and after we have too many laws and regulations, we have entered something very close to socialism. - Melons Post #12

Through socialist policies I received an education that my parents couldn't have dreamed of. I had my life saved twice by a 100% socialised health service and when I was out of work after college, I was kept out of the soup kitchens by a welfare state that supported me until I found a job and proceeded to begin to repay that socialist state, through taxes, for my education, health and benefits. - Me Post #19

socialism is workers owning the surplus of their labor. (Or means of production.) Not government-ownership of the economy. - DinoDudeEpic Post #24

Socialism doesn't imply any singular ideology. - Waas Post #29

Socialism's functional definition these days is "whatever I don't like." - Obvious Child Post #38

socialism is force, ...socialism takes from the individual without his or her permission, and redistributes it too other people not institutions for the public good for every one( ie .the general welfare of a state)..socialism, which gives more power to government too be the provider. - Ernst Post #47

socialist is more concerned with control and power, a Marxist is more concerned of up lifting the down trodden and poor --->creating equality in every aspect of life, believe it or not democracy does too, will is why it is bad, because it removes individual liberty. - Ernst Post #49

You're right, ask 100 people what socialism is and you'll get 500 different answers. I know what I mean when I say 'socialism' and some, but not all, of that is good.

Click to expand...

I generally use the terms that are common in Germany: That boils down to "socialism is what socialists define as such". Hence the East Bloc countries were socialist, as the commies in power used that term. To make a difference to forms of "democratic socialism" propagated by leftists within the democratic systems, which clearly distanced themselves from the East Bloc socialism, the East Bloc socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat" was sometimes called "Realsozialismus" or "really existing socialism".

I find it funny when democratic socialists/Maoists/Trotzkists/non-dogmatic socialists claim that the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist brand of "real socialism" isn't socialism -- reminds me of various Christian sects who claim all the other churches are "not really Christians".

Certainly, a social state which is based on a free market economy and limited social systems with moderate redistribution of wealth, which is often called "socialist" by American righties, is NOT considered "socialism" in Germany. It were our conservative Christian Democrats, even going back to the social programs of conservative-monarchist Chancellor Bismarck, who introduced these social systems. We call it "Social Market Economy" as a free-market alternative to socialism.

Then there is "social democracy". The German Social Democrats used to be Marxists to some extent, but were anti-revolutionary and anti-communist and supported a strictly legalist reform approach within a liberal representative constitutional democracy. They were the only party in Weimar really fighting for the Republic, against both Nazis and Commies, and the only party voting against Hitler's Enabling Act in 1933. They even used massive force against revolutionary socialists and communists. Which is why in public perception, there is an extreme difference between Social Democracy and "socialism".

Social Democrats exist in other European countries too, like in Scandinavia or the Netherlands. And they are mostly responsible for the extensive welfare states that exist there. But most people would make a very sharp difference between this democratic kind of policies and "real socialism" (revolutionary brands of Marxist-Leninist or even Stalinist brands of socialism that existed in the East Bloc).

Political movements are not bad because they want wealth redistribution. They are bad when they support dictatorship and anti-constitutional ideas, in the eyes of the German mainstream.

Andalublue said:

Well, what people just in this one thread have used to define socialism amount to:

its just a clever rouse[sic] to confuse the people. - Ernst Post #4

REAL socialism is government owned farms, industries, etc... think USSR. - Peter G Post #11

the more laws and regulations we create to protect ourselves....the more laws and regulations we have to create to protect ourselves from the laws and regulations that we already created....and after we have too many laws and regulations, we have entered something very close to socialism. - Melons Post #12

Through socialist policies I received an education that my parents couldn't have dreamed of. I had my life saved twice by a 100% socialised health service and when I was out of work after college, I was kept out of the soup kitchens by a welfare state that supported me until I found a job and proceeded to begin to repay that socialist state, through taxes, for my education, health and benefits. - Me Post #19

socialism is workers owning the surplus of their labor. (Or means of production.) Not government-ownership of the economy. - DinoDudeEpic Post #24

Socialism doesn't imply any singular ideology. - Waas Post #29

Socialism's functional definition these days is "whatever I don't like." - Obvious Child Post #38

socialism is force, ...socialism takes from the individual without his or her permission, and redistributes it too other people not institutions for the public good for every one( ie .the general welfare of a state)..socialism, which gives more power to government too be the provider. - Ernst Post #47

socialist is more concerned with control and power, a Marxist is more concerned of up lifting the down trodden and poor --->creating equality in every aspect of life, believe it or not democracy does too, will is why it is bad, because it removes individual liberty. - Ernst Post #49

You're right, ask 100 people what socialism is and you'll get 500 different answers. I know what I mean when I say 'socialism' and some, but not all, of that is good.

Click to expand...

When I think Socialist Country, I think of a totalitarian state where free enterprise is outlawed, nobody has the right to vote or if they do its only symbolic as the candidates are already picked by the state and in most cases freedom of speech and the right to leave the country are not allowed. Cuba, North Korea, etc.

Smeagol said:

When I think Socialist Country, I think of a totalitarian state where free enterprise is outlawed, nobody has the right to vote or if they do its only symbolic as the candidates are already picked by the state and in most cases freedom of speech and the right to leave the country are not allowed. Cuba, North Korea, etc.

Click to expand...

Ah -- so you base your views on a profound misunderstanding.

Mycroft said:

While I was in the U.S. Army stationed in Germany in the 80's I visited East and West Berlin before the fall of the USSR and after. Here are a couple pictures that I've found online that are good representations of what I saw in Alexander Platz, East Berlin.

Before the fall:

View attachment 67136975

After the fall:

View attachment 67136976

What struck me the most before:

Everything was grey. Very little color. Quiet. No loud voices. No crowds. People would look at me out of the corner of their eyes...but nobody would speak to me.

After:

Complete opposite. Children, young people, adults laughing, smiling, talking...even to me. Color everywhere.

Click to expand...

most of the people that I have talked to, who immigrated to the US from the USSR, always mention their first experience in a grocery store and how they were overwhelmed by all the colors

Andalublue said:

How very different from these halcyon days we're living through now.

Click to expand...

I dont think these are halcyon days either.

Different in that mass unemployment was about half what it is now and this after the stats were fixed to exclude several groups from the stats that were included in the Seventies.

Click to expand...

Of course unemployment continued to rise, the country was virtually bankrupted & the manufacturing sector ended up folding, thats always going to cause unemployment to rise.

People are still dying of hypothermia, not due to strikes but due to fuel poverty created by the profiteering of corporations. Strikes happened and passed, profiteering is for life.

Click to expand...

A LOT less are dying from hypothermia today & there isnt nationwide blackouts with every single old person & child sitting shivering in the darkness.

I'm glad you think that things are so heavenly now.

Click to expand...

I dont, but neither am I going to try & kid people about how damaging your supposedly halcyon days were.

I mean you mention Thatcher, old Margaret Thatcher "milk snatcher", not a woman Im fond of, in fact who was? She was pretty unpopular wasnt she, so how bad were things that people felt compelled to vote for someone so unpopular?

She had to sell off virtually everything left to pay off the debts didnt she?

But how bad were things? The economy has been a pretty major debate between the main Brit parties in recent times hasnt it? Tell me how often do the Cons & Libs, in debate, mention Labors history? I see it a lot in what I see & hear.

Over 35 years later its still seen as such a bad era, such a boogyman that its dragged out as the benchmark of how bad things can be in Britain & even Labor have distanced themselves from that era, their time in office, through shame at how bad it was.

No, I dont think life is heavenly today, but like most people that things could be & have been worse.

Gardener said:

Ah -- so you base your views on a profound misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

I figured. That why I hoped for a better definition and some examples.

Smeagol said:

I figured. That why I hoped for a better definition and some examples.

Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with the understanding that the term "socialism" involves degrees thereof rather than either/or.

German guy said:

I generally use the terms that are common in Germany: That boils down to "socialism is what socialists define as such". Hence the East Bloc countries were socialist, as the commies in power used that term. To make a difference to forms of "democratic socialism" propagated by leftists within the democratic systems, which clearly distanced themselves from the East Bloc socialism, the East Bloc socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat" was sometimes called "Realsozialismus" or "really existing socialism".

I find it funny when democratic socialists/Maoists/Trotzkists/non-dogmatic socialists claim that the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist brand of "real socialism" isn't socialism -- reminds me of various Christian sects who claim all the other churches are "not really Christians".

Click to expand...

You contradict yourself. First you say socialism is what socialists define as such', and then you say that you find it funny when socialists do just that...opine on what is and is not socialism. Which is it, GG? Perhaps your first comment meant, 'socialism is what the socialists I call socialist define as such'. Perhaps you'd correct me.

Social Democrats exist in other European countries too, like in Scandinavia or the Netherlands. And they are mostly responsible for the extensive welfare states that exist there. But most people would make a very sharp difference between this democratic kind of policies and "real socialism" (revolutionary brands of Marxist-Leninist or even Stalinist brands of socialism that existed in the East Bloc).

Click to expand...

As a non-socialist, isn't it beyond your ability to define what strand of socialism is 'real' socialism? Perhaps that epithet 'real socialism' is applied to the state socialism of the Eastern Bloc in some circles in Germany, but I've never heard my German friends use it, but it is highly misleading and certainly created for rhetorical, i.e. anti-socialist, uses.

Andalublue said:

You contradict yourself. First you say socialism is what socialists define as such', and then you say that you find it funny when socialists do just that...opine on what is and is not socialism. Which is it, GG? Perhaps your first comment meant, 'socialism is what the socialists I call socialist define as such'. Perhaps you'd correct me.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sloppy wording, my bad. Of course democratic socialists who call themselves "socialist" are socialists too. But so are the Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist socialists.

As a non-socialist, isn't it beyond your ability to define what strand of socialism is 'real' socialism? Perhaps that epithet 'real socialism' is applied to the state socialism of the Eastern Bloc in some circles in Germany, but I've never heard my German friends use it, but it is highly misleading and certainly created for rhetorical, i.e. anti-socialist, uses.

Click to expand...

No, it is common usage. "Real existierender Sozialismus" (="socialism as it exists in reality") was even sometimes used by certain democratic socialists to label the East Bloc.

Paul Austin said:

I dont think these are halcyon days either.

Click to expand...

That's a relief. So, how bad do you think they really are?

Of course unemployment continued to rise, the country was virtually bankrupted & the manufacturing sector ended up folding, thats always going to cause unemployment to rise.

Click to expand...

You think that current levels of unemployment are due to the continuing effects of the pre-Thatcher era?

A LOT less are dying from hypothermia today & there isnt nationwide blackouts with every single old person & child sitting shivering in the darkness.

Click to expand...

I lived through 1973 as an 11-year-old kid in a dirt poor family, you are wildly exaggerating.

I mean you mention Thatcher, old Margaret Thatcher "milk snatcher", not a woman Im fond of, in fact who was? She was pretty unpopular wasnt she, so how bad were things that people felt compelled to vote for someone so unpopular?

Click to expand...

She was wildly popular with a large section of society. They loved her wars, her anti-unionism and her flagrant populism. Two-thirds of the Press loved her, and still do. The bankers and financial industry loved her and bank-rolled her privatisations and destruction of the industrial base. If you're looking for the authors of our current predicament look to them.

She had to sell off virtually everything left to pay off the debts didnt she?

Click to expand...

No, she had to sell off national assets to reward those people who put her in power and kept her there. They were generously compensated.

But how bad were things? The economy has been a pretty major debate between the main Brit parties in recent times hasnt it? Tell me how often do the Cons & Libs, in debate, mention Labors history? I see it a lot in what I see & hear.

Click to expand...

Really? I haven't heard the Seventies mentioned. Don't forget that the Blair years were a continuation of the Thatcher years, not the reincarnation of Wilson/Callaghan.

Over 35 years later its still seen as such a bad era, such a boogyman that its dragged out as the benchmark of how bad things can be in Britain & even Labor have distanced themselves from that era, their time in office, through shame at how bad it was.

Click to expand...

You called it, a 'boogyman'. You're aware that boogymen aren't real, aren't you?

No, I dont think life is heavenly today, but like most people that things could be & have been worse.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that the Sixties and Seventies were halcyon days. I'm arguing that there were a lot of good things that came out of post-War socialism in the UK that have been lost: equality of opportunity; social mobility; community and solidarity. I'm also arguing that despite what the ideologues of neo-liberalism might have us believe, things are not appreciably better now than they were 40 years ago, it's just that a small class of plutocrats are a lot, lot better off than they were, which is what all that class warfare that Thatcher et al waged was all about.

ernst barkmann said:

well it it could be proved that it was not ratified according too the constitution it would be illegal.

now there is a man who claims it is unconstitutional because he has been to every state who vote on the amendment and says he has proof, its not legal, and he has been ordered by the USSC to keep silent on his evidence.


you choose for yourself......HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know of such people. They also tend to believe all government is illegal and tend to run around in the woods in combat fatigues with modified automatic weapons.

I'll try to circumscribe the terms a little more, as I understand them:

Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are necessarily Marxists. Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and Maoists are kinds of dogmatic socialists.

Dogmatic Marxists or Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists or Maoists support Marx' idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (see: Marx' Communist Manifesto), hence the tyrannic political system in the East Bloc. It's called "socialism as it exists in reality", because it is the only genuinely socialist system that has ever been realized.

Trotzkists are dogmatic socialists who believe in the ideologies of Marx and Trotzky, sometimes Lenin too, and usually want to replace the constitutional-parliamentary system with a system of council democracy (has never been put to reality, as far as I know).

Many of these dogmatic socialists are pro-revolutionary (sometimes calling themselves "communists", while communism is their desired end goal of a classless society according to Marx, while socialism is the necessary first step towards that goal).

Social Democrats may be democratic socialists, but not all Social Democrats are democratic socialists. Social Democrats usually support the constitutional-representative democratic-republican system of government and are anti-revolutionary and legalist-reformist.

Democratic socialists are people who want to expand social redistribution within the constitutional-democratic-republican system of government, while non-socialist Social Democrats are satisfied with preserving the existing social redistribution systems.

Democratic socialists may be Marxists, but not necessarily are. There are non-dogmatic socialists too.

People who support public social safety nets are not necessarily socialists or Social Democrats. You find people from almost all sides of the political spectrum who support certain public programs for wealth redistribution.

For example, the (West-)German system of "Social Market Economy" was created by the conservative right-wing Christian Democrats. The Scandinavian welfare states were created by Social Democrats (not all of which consider themselves socialists). The pre-Thatcher British welfare systems were created by the Labor Party, which, as far as I know, consisted mostly of non-dogmatic, mostly non-Marxist democratic socialists.

Some on the American right seem to label anything "socialist" that's left from hardcore-libertarian positions.

Wiggen said:

Yeah, I know of such people. They also tend to believe all government is illegal and tend to run around in the woods in combat fatigues with modified automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

your referring to someone who calls themselves a sovereign citizen, and some are crazy.

during a Constitution class the teacher spoke about the guy in the link i posted, now i left it up too the individual to choose, but the guy, says the 16th was not properly ratified, because some states had changed the wording and approved it, which it cant be changed and voted on, and some states he says voted it down, and he has the officials record too prove it.

German guy said:

I'll try to circumscribe the terms a little more, as I understand them:

Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are necessarily Marxists. Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and Maoists are kinds of dogmatic socialists.

Dogmatic Marxists or Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists or Maoists support Marx' idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (see: Marx' Communist Manifesto), hence the tyrannic political system in the East Bloc. It's called "socialism as it exists in reality", because it is the only genuinely socialist system that has ever been realized.

Trotzkists are dogmatic socialists who believe in the ideologies of Marx and Trotzky, sometimes Lenin too, and usually want to replace the constitutional-parliamentary system with a system of council democracy (has never been put to reality, as far as I know).

Many of these dogmatic socialists are pro-revolutionary (sometimes calling themselves "communists", while communism is their desired end goal of a classless society according to Marx, while socialism is the necessary first step towards that goal).

Social Democrats may be democratic socialists, but not all Social Democrats are democratic socialists. Social Democrats usually support the constitutional-representative democratic-republican system of government and are anti-revolutionary and legalist-reformist.

Democratic socialists are people who want to expand social redistribution within the constitutional-democratic-republican system of government, while non-socialist Social Democrats are satisfied with preserving the existing social redistribution systems.

Democratic socialists may be Marxists, but not necessarily are. There are non-dogmatic socialists too.

People who support public social safety nets are not necessarily socialists or Social Democrats. You find people from almost all sides of the political spectrum who support certain public programs for wealth redistribution.

For example, the (West-)German system of "Social Market Economy" was created by the conservative right-wing Christian Democrats. The Scandinavian welfare states were created by Social Democrats (not all of which consider themselves socialists).

Some on the American right seem to label anything "socialist" that's left from hardcore-libertarian positions.

Click to expand...

German guy, it would be foolish of me to argue with you over this subject because, i believe you know more on the subject then i do of Europe ................so i bow to your knowledge.

i have lived in west Germany many years ago and i loved it while i was there, but i was in the military then, i hope it is still as nice there as it used too be.

I voted yesterday in liberal Illinois... and I had to show an ID card.

Just saying.

Jonsa said:

And so are you.

You have need of security - police provide it locally, FBI federally, CIA and Armed forces internationally.
You have need of roads
You have need of airports
You have need of food - distributed by others catering to your needs.

You and everyone else with half a brain object to the freeloaders. The difference is that you would like to beleive that everyone on welfare or unemployment or disability or workmans comp. or food stamps is a freeloader, where as I believe that the amount of fraud is not significant enough to condemn the system.

Its kinda like in person voter fraud - 10 cases in the country and 35 states want to change the voter ID laws immediately prior to the election .

Click to expand...

Peter Grimm said:

I voted yesterday in liberal Illinois... and I had to show an ID card.

Just saying.

Click to expand...

since just about everything one does requires an ID....showing it is REASONABLE.

ernst barkmann said:

German guy, it would be foolish of me to argue with you over this subject because, i believe you know more on the subject then i do of Europe ................so i bow to your knowledge.

i have lived in west Germany many years ago and i loved it while i was there, but i was in the military then, i hope it is still as nice there as it used too be.

Click to expand...

Glad you had a good time in Germany!

I just wonder ... why did you chose a guy in a SS uniform as avatar? Are you fond of the Nazis?

Since some countries are more socialist than others, think of it like a spectrum, not an absolute.

Have you ever lived in or spent a lot of time in a country which was more socialist than the one you live in today? What was that experience like?

Smeagol said:

Could you define and list some examples or what you mean when you say "socialist country"? With labels like socialism, communism, Nazi, tyranny, regime, etc. being thrown around in the public square not in efforts to contribute to rational discussion on real issues but instead to demonize by use of dishonest emotional manipulation in pursuit of advancing a political agenda, I personally have a hard time understanding what people mean by these terms anymore.

Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:

your referring to someone who calls themselves a sovereign citizen, and some are crazy.

during a Constitution class the teacher spoke about the guy in the link i posted, now i left it up too the individual to choose, but the guy, says the 16th was not properly ratified, because some states had changed the wording and approved it, which it cant be changed and voted on, and some states he says voted it down, and he has the officials record too prove it.

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you're a non-native English speaker. If so, congratulations on your excellent language skills, you're as good as German Guy and better than most. Please don't take this the wrong way, but 'too' means excessively or beyond the normal e.g. he is too fat, that's too much. 'To' is a preposition meaning in the direction of, or reaching or receiving, e.g. he went to Italy, I left it up to the individual, or you were cruel to him. I hope this helps.