Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Peter McLennan]

Referring to some as "socialist" for rhetorical purposes does not make them so.

Blaming the messenger now?

It's not me who continually refers to "The Usual Suspects", including Canada, as "socialist".  We're agreed: most such accusers have no idea what socialism is.  That's why they attempt to conflate them with dictatorships. 

Oh, wait.  That was you.

[Rob C]

Oh, for God's sake! The "usual suspects" are all capitalist democracies. Referring to some as "socialist" for rhetorical purposes does not make them so. There is this desperate attempt to make socialism more palatable to those who never experienced it, never learned what it is, and were hardly born before its demise, by falsely identifying it with certain capitalist democracies.

If I understand what you are suggesting, then it appears that you equate socialism with communism. Now, I know that there are some fellow-traveller aspects to this, but not quite the same thing.

We had the bumbling, pipe-puffing Harold Wilson with his Gannex coat, Slim Jim Callaghan, Bilblical Brown and SUV Tony Blair up as head honchos of Brit socialism (in order not to be accused of unnecessary cruelty, I shall not mention dear Michael Foot) and some of those had pretty red credentials, but their governments were still tossed out in due process. I don't think you toss out communism that easily.

But, Brexit could see the empowerment of a newer menace wearing the socialist skin.

;-(

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You would read the article and think for yourself. I know it is a lot to ask.

This is unnecessarily condescending. It is ok to provide links, as there are those who might be interested in reading it. But just providing links, without making your own point in a debate between the members of this forum, or explaining briefly what the point of the link is, is condescending.

Having said that, I have read the linked article. It lost me the moment it said the following:

... for goods that should be selling for only a little more than the cost of production.

Obviously a person with learning difficulties, AOC, wrote that article. Who says that prices should be formed "a little more above the cost of production"!? I mean, seriously people!? Centuries of capitalism have not taught you that companies should be free to charge as much as they can get away with? Charging "a little more above the cost of production" is Soviet Petoletka (5-year plan) concept.

Also, from the article, it follows that if I lower the prices when the competitor does, I am colluding? Really!? I should keep my prices high and lose all the business to the competition? Seriously?

About parallelism concept in the article. Where are the parallel moves by the Trump campaign? If Puting hacked Dems server (a big IF), did Trump do a parallel action of hacking it as well?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If I understand what you are suggesting, then it appears that you equate socialism with communism...

Communism is just a late-stage socialism.

While some of your Brits could have been or are pure commies at heart, that doesn't make Britain anything else but a capitalist democracy. Even today's US has communist and socialist parties.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... most such accusers have no idea what socialism is...

Oh, wait.  That was you.

Really? I do not know what socialism is? I, who was born in a socialist country, educated there, saw with my own eyes what socialism is in two other socialist countries before the fall of communism (Hungary and Romania), then lived eight years Russia right after the fall of communism? And I do not know what socialism is?

What is your experience with it?

[James Clark]

Also, from the article, it follows that if I lower the prices when the competitor does, I am colluding? Really!?

Sometimes in similar situations, apparently.

[James Clark]

Communism is just a late-stage socialism.

And oligarchy is just late stage capitalism.   Thing is, by the time you get to dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what the original movement was, does it?

[JoeKitchen]

Sometimes in similar situations, apparently.

Actual colluding between two businesses is a little different than say, being accusing of colluding and then having a former FBI head with 19 lawyers and 41 agents spend nearly two years only to find no evidence of colluding, which essentially means it did not happen.

BTW, the airlines did not admit to wrong doing, only settled because it would cost less to fight it in court.  No actual investigation was conducted. 

American said on its settlement deal: “Despite our firm conviction in the appropriateness of our actions, costs to defend against antitrust litigation often run into the tens of millions of dollars,” American spokesman Matt Miller said in a written statement. “So while it is difficult to agree to a settlement when we believe we’re right on the law and the facts, settling this case is a prudent decision for American.”

Got to hand it to Uncle Sam to make a system such that it is nearly impossible to defend yourself against due to the cost, so most just throw their hands up with Uncle Sam claiming victory. 

[JoeKitchen]

And oligarchy is just late stage capitalism.   Thing is, by the time you get to dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what the original movement was, does it?

Oligarchies usually fall apart from free market forces, with very few exceptions becoming monopolies, so long as the government does not screw it up.  Actually the only exception I can think of that has not been a result of government interference is DeBeers' control over gem grade diamonds, but those are optional luxury products, so not really something that is necessary. 

Look at the car makers, eventually foreign manufacturers came to the USA market and broke that up. 

Look at airlines.  After the government let up on regulations, the amount of airlines went up. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And oligarchy is just late stage capitalism...

No, it isn't.

...   Thing is, by the time you get to dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what the original movement was, does it?

Yes, it does matter, because socialism starts with a dictatorship, there is no "by the time..." part.

[LesPalenik]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it does matter, because socialism starts with a dictatorship, there is no "by the time..." part.

An even greater problem is that once the socialism starts, it is almost impossible to change it. Very different from the 4 or 8 years maximum term of office. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Obviously a person with learning difficulties, AOC, wrote that article.

Oh my, you are really scared shitless about her, aren't you? And she's not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...

You repeatedly refer to her in a condescending manner, even when the topic isn't about her. Why?

For those not as familiar with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as Slobodan appears to be:
https://youtu.be/a5FBWkbAjEI?t=18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT3-_e3iikA

It's interesting for us outsiders to understand, when a legit question is put forward by a member of the US Congres, why is it that some folks go into defense mode by 'downplaying' the seriousness of the people asking the question? What's to hide, or does it hurt to be called out (even if the issue isn't at the table of this discussion)?

Cheers,
Bart

[Jeremy Roussak]

The US President Frank Underwood killed a journalist.

But UK Prime Minister Francis Urquhart did it first. So it doesn't count.

Jeremy

[jeremyrh]

Oh my, you are really scared shitless about her, aren't you? And she's not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...

You repeatedly refer to her in a condescending manner, even when the topic isn't about her. Why?

I think we know the answer to that, and it's not about politics. Or shall we say, it's about a mixture of politics and other factors.

[LesPalenik]

And she's (AOC) not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...

That is a sign that she is not completely clueless.

[JoeKitchen]

That is a sign that she is not completely clueless.

 

[JoeKitchen]

Oh my, you are really scared shitless about her, aren't you? And she's not even running for the 2020 presidential elections ...

You repeatedly refer to her in a condescending manner, even when the topic isn't about her. Why?

For those not as familiar with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as Slobodan appears to be:
https://youtu.be/a5FBWkbAjEI?t=18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT3-_e3iikA

It's interesting for us outsiders to understand, when a legit question is put forward by a member of the US Congres, why is it that some folks go into defense mode by 'downplaying' the seriousness of the people asking the question? What's to hide, or does it hurt to be called out (even if the issue isn't at the table of this discussion)?

Cheers,
Bart

Even her own party is afraid of her bring them down.  I read a little while back that there is a rumor going around that the Dems in NY State, after the census, may draw her out of her district.  The Dems did this to someone in 2010 they did not like, so it is not out of the question. 

[RSL]

That is a sign that she is not completely clueless.

No, Les. It's a sign that she's not old enough. Were she 35 she'd surely be running.

[LesPalenik]

No, Les. It's a sign that she's not old enough. Were she 35 she'd surely be running.

I forgot about the 35 years requirement. So she couldn't run even for a vice president. Good example of the Natural Selection.

[RSL]

Unless the people of New York are smart enough to send her back to behind the bar, she'll run one of these days.