• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democratic Socialists: Do you agree with this statement?

Do you agree with this statement?

  • Total voters
    14
Integrityrespec said:
There are a couple of problems with our democracy and those are centered in poor execution of a sound plan. The assumption that the people don't have control lies in the misunderstanding of how power is wielded. In a country the size of the U.S. our system relies on the vote. Citizens need to exercise the right to vote with their decisions on who or what to vote for based on a solid understanding of issues, consequences and the positions and qualification of those running for office. The electorate can exercise great control through the vote if they do not robotically re-elect failed leaders and support unsound policy. This means both sides must evaluate those in office and and those running for office. Voters must fight the urge to reelect poor leaders or leaders with questionable past. Too often voters do not know the issues or the stance of those they vote for on election day.
Democratic Socialism is not the answer, because it still requires voting to elect our representatives and voting on issues. If they vote blindly the overall result will not change.
I'll only address one issue here, and that being the current state of the economy which is doing very well. It is at it's best point in several decades and many forcast predict it to continue. To remove the current leader of the country because you don't like his personality would be a misstep if you are looking to the strenght of the future economy. To remove the current President would require that the person put in his place has a better economic plan for the strenght of the country. Putting forth plans that do not maintain the strenght of the economy and support growth will result in worsening conditions. This means you cannot simply redistribute wealth as a means to keep the economy growing.
Click to expand...

Just saw some graphs from an economist for a realtor organization and business spending is WAY down.

So the tax cut "sugar high" may he coming to an end.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No one touts ideas of democracy, we are a democracy, no touting needed. We've always been what fits the generally accepted definition of a democracy, a representative democracy inside the framework of a constitutional republic.

We have never been a pure Athenian democracy. No one has in over two millennia. So no wariness necessary, as it is impossible that this nation or any other will ever manage to convert to pure democracy.
Therefore it is probably safe to say that the worries you express amount to a slightly irrational fear of something which does not exist today.
Click to expand...

We could change the way representation is accomplished, however. Without changing a single law.

Simply elect people who go to the capital on question, use their resources to examine the way issues at hand affect their constituents, go to those constituents and tell them what they've learned, what they suggest, poll those consitutents and go back and vote the way they chose.

Our form of representation was a response to logistics.

The world has changed and there is no reason to pick someone and hope they do what you want anymore.

We would still he a representative democracy. Just not one where the person you elect just takes off and does whatever they want for their term. Which is what donors want, more often than what voters want.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I would like more control to the local governments. South Dakota and LA are too different animals. People in large cities using their power of numbers to rule over people in states they have never seen is stupid plain and simple.
Click to expand...

So we have the opposite instead. Which also sucks.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Almost every former aide, disgraced or not, says that.
I'm not TALKING ABOUT his White House aides, I am talking about people who had known and worked for and with him for YEARS, and then also a few former White House personnel. But I am talking about people who were within the Trump Organization...even the guys who ghost wrote his books. All of them seem to agree that Donald Trump's every waking moment is pure television production, even if no cameras are rolling.

It really seems that Trump has been living in The Truman Show, only it's not Truman, it's Trump, and the show has been of his own making, and not some hidden corporate svengali.

And as for his feeling of invulnerability and invincibility, it is part of his pathological narcissism. History is full of tyrants, despots and dictators who actually believed that nothing could touch them. Some even believed that actual bullets or other weapons could not pierce them.

Drop him off in a tee shirt and jeans from a Walmart, with no phone, no staff, no hairspray and no resources, in some small town in the middle of America and I don't think he could marshal the wits to deal with a flat tire.
Click to expand...



Someplace with only women so he would have to deal with them in order to be helped.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
How would that work? How would one exclude libertarians from laws and regulations that affect everyone else?
Click to expand...

I am being facetious. Over the years I have seen libertarians argue against legal recognition of same sex marriage. For federal regulations that trump state laws such as in the case of California's clean air laws. Against the separation of church and state and so on. There are some actual libertarians, but many of them are just typical Republicans that call themselves libertarian because they think it sounds cool or something. The same thing is true of people that call themselves "Independent", they are typically more partisan than people that actually call themselves Democrats or Republicans.
 
Idiometer said:
Sorry, but I don't see Northern Ireland on either list. Plus, it isn't a country, it's part of Great Britain.

Argue semantics if that floats your boat, but the type of government programs and policies that I and many Americans would like corresponds to countries where citizens are most content. What we have now is a hot mess.
Click to expand...

It is under the section for places currently government by a democratic socialist party, which is incorrect. It is not semantics, there is a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism, they have very different end goals and means.
 
What if...? said:
So maybe some limitations on the big boys?

They already supplement their profits with safety net benefits for their employees at our expense instead of wages.
Click to expand...

I'm not against some things that might effect the big boys as long as it doesn't hurt the little boys in the process. Raises to the minimum wage hurt the little boys. That's the trouble with the left, they think most businesses are the big boys when most businesses are actually the small boys. McDonalds is actually a great example. Most McDonalds are the little boys. And, the McDonalds corporation doesn't get rich from selling burgers and fries. They make most of their money from charging rent to the little boys.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Someplace with only women so he would have to deal with them in order to be helped.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess, if you want to see an old gray skinned obese bald man with fading spray tan and a chip on his shoulder get kicked in the nuts.
It probably happens at least once a day somewhere in America, just not to him...yet.
 
What if...? said:
Less desperate people, fewer prohibitions means less need to "protect" ones self.

Frankly, I find the fear thing kinda funny. I have wandered around the fringes of society, lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and never once felt the need for a gun. Shooting is fun, but not something I need to feel safe.
Click to expand...

I have been in some of the worse neighborhoods as well unarmed. Lucky for me when I did get in trouble we had a gun. Never had to shoot anyone thank God.
 
Idiometer said:
The avatar is one of my favorite fictional characters. It is not a photo of me, but yes, I'm a gun owner.

Adding better social programs, taxing rich corporations who make billions of the backs of American workers, regulating the financupual shenanigans of Wall St. ... which part of that has anything to do with gun ownership? Were you under the impression that I was planning to relocate to Denmark? Or are you afraid that adopting many of the systems that these other civilized countries enjoy somehow means giving up gun ownership?
Click to expand...

It seems they had to.
 
Idiometer said:
Where is anyone advocating that Los Angeles should rule Rapid City? You aren't making sense here. Local governments DO have control over local issues, as do state governments. The only involvement from the federal government comes when states or localities try to enact laws that violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Like the 55 mph speed limit imposed by the federal government. Taking away state road funding if they don't comply. Like my avatar of the borg resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Big government reminds me of the borg.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
“This Campaign Is Literally Making Socialists”



Do you agree? Is that a fair description of "democratic socialism"?

Why or why not?

Further in, he confirms that he means it like it sounds:
Click to expand...

Are you trying to talk about social democrats or socialists? Because both use democratic means (unlike commies, at least most commie governments were not elected) but are totally incomparable when looking at their goals and their plans.
 
Moderate Right said:
Their prices are already higher than Walmart. Raising them even higher just drives more customers over to Walmart, creating the exact scenario I spoke of. That's the trouble with left wing idiots, they never think their hair brained ideas through.
Click to expand...

Calling me an idiot is un-called for. I've been completely civil with you.

I'll try one more time, but if you snark back, don't expect any more replies ftom me.

Most of the small businesses I'm talking about don't sell the same products as Walmart. Some are shoe stores, some are restaurants, some sell personalized stationery, some sell bicycles and skateboards, or kayaks and sailboards that they make right there. I'm talking about barber shops and nail salons, auto repairs, autobody shops, dry cleaners, dive bars (heaven knows, there aren't enough of those!). There are new businesses going up in this town almost every day. If they have to give their minimum wage workers a raise, they know exactly how to spread that cost out among their given products, charging just a wee bit more on this and that in order to cover the cost without losing customers.

I think maybe you worry too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom