Oh my, not only lacking in any way an understanding of satire,
So, you're going to assess my ability to understand satire, based on a sentence which quite reasonably might not be that obvious to everyone?
but an attempt to educate also. Brilliant!
yet you are defining tact, an attempt to educate, in this comment. brilliant!
Pelosi dropped into it via another poster, regarding what she spent on wardrobe.
I've been around, and seen in action, any number of politicians through out my life. Trump is likely one of the most tactless people I've seen yet, but there are any number of close runners up, from both sides.
Tact: adroitness and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.
Republicans carefully listen to the issue, and then tell people what they think they want to hear. Democrats create the issue, then tell people how they are going to fix the problem, regardless of what anyone else believes.
Many politicians tell people what they want to hear, some do, some don't. But I don't agree that republicans "listen carefully to the issue", and "democrats create the issue", is a vacuous claim.
How sad that this country is run on a duopoly.
Our system of government is not conducive to coalitions like a parliamentary system is.
But I will say this, Socialism, even 'Democratic Socialism' isn't that far different from what many are complaining about now, and several comments on this board prove it.
The term "socialism" is so bantered about over the last several decades that it's meaning is practically useless. And, no country more than Russia has destroyed it's meaning with the USSR, and the Nazis, neither of which were true socialist countries, they were totalitarian/authoritarian states that called themselves socialist.
republicans have totally accepted that Soviet Russia's claim of socialism as a legitimate example of what socialism is, but they do not accept their claim of being a democracy as a legitimate example of what democracy is.
That isn't logical. If we reject their claim of being a democracy, then we must also reject their claim of being a socialist state.
No matter, I don't agree that a purely socialist system is the way to go, I favor a blend of both socialism and capitalism, where we have capitalism for wants, and socialism for needs. I will define these more specifically if you want, but that's what i favor. Thing is, that is
what we have now, though I believe socialism should be extended to health care and education and strategic resources and strategic industries.
For example, capitalism does well on things like products, furniture, cosmetics, all kinds of stuff people like to buy, but it does not do so well on land and real estate, where prices are rising faster than inflation, where we are headed to a scenario where it's like it is in Hong Kong, where the average rent is 19 times greater than the average wage. It's getting so that if you are not rich, you cannot afford to live. Banks and landlords are gobbling up more and more and more of our disposable incomes. But, this subject is worthy of a book or three, cannot deal with it entirely here.
