I think this political system/philosophy is a bankrupt cancer that must be cut out of our society and culture and I am beginning to not care about how that is accomplished. Anyone else feel the same way?

The left created the label far right wing extremist because they knew people would reach the point where they understand the attempted leftist takedown of our country is a real thing and must be stopped. Dan Bongino says it's not bad enough yet but there is a tipping point when the leftist authoritarians are too powerful and entrenched to stop. I think if we haven't already reached that point we will reach it before it is bad enough.

Probably go ahead and give it another shot at the ballot box since the election is practically upon us before you go with the "don't care" how it is accomplished route.

Yes I know if it turns it out poorly it could have only happened through cheating, but if it goes well then you won't have to consider anything drastic beyond the current daydreams of civil war and helicopter rides.

Get off our lazy butts and spend some time and effort contradicting the lefts idiotic false narratives. Put in a couple of volunteers days a year, or at least calmly express your own informed views in a reasonable way was opportunity presents. That helps encourage others to be more assertive themselves.

#1 by a long shot

Teach your kids about the evils of all forms of leftist tyranny, because every one else will tell them lies to the opposite.

Remind them that their ideas were created by white men, and a lot of those white men were also rich.

Yes. Lots of helicopter rides. America is so far gone that an election in the good guys' favor will only delay the continued dismantling of America.

The deep state permeates government, our military, schools, the media and big tech. It must be defeated. That's something an election will never achieve.

Social security is socialism. So is Medicare and Medicaid and unemployment insurance and WIC and SNAP and public education and many other popular programs.

Americans love socialism as long as you don't call it socialism.

we are currently controlled by a Marxist regime and a global government they envision as a global communist utopia seems to be where things are headed for the western world. get ready to eat bugs. you will have nothing and you will be happy.

god/religion/church, the nuclear family and fathers, and decency don't seem like they're going to make a comeback anytime soon, so it's daddy government to the rescue to fill the void for most.

an ever-growing government getting more and more powerful and hell-bent on not only centrally planning and controlling the economy, but also redistributing wealth to an ever-growing impoverished citizenry of government-dependent socialist voters doesn't seem to be going away and neither does the big government justice department spending its resources silencing/censoring/imprisoning/disarming political opposition that want smaller government instead of on real threats to citizens' safety.

mainstream media and Hollywood aren't going to all-of a sudden become anti-big-government establishment and anti-communist - they need the impoverished base to like them.

academia isn't going to all-of-a-sudden become anti-big-government establishment and anti-communist - they need big government to fund them.

billionaire globalists don't seem like they're going to stop funding equity initiatives or strategies and initiatives that support depopulation and climate alarmism.

a radical executive that would abolish federal bureaucracies that have been weaponized and gotten too powerful and slash gov't spending, cut taxes and regulation, spur growth - like what they just got in Argentina - maybe someone like Ramaswamy here - can't happen when opposition to the regime are censored, imprisoned, or removed from ballots and when elections are mailed in and can't be truly audited, and collection efforts are well-funded by aforementioned billionaire globalists.

What can you do? Start by keeping god and family in your life and encourage others. Protect yourself and teach others to protect themselves. Arm yourself and your family. Buy real property while it's still possible for ordinary citizens to do so. Keep voting for the anti-communist candidates (not today's democrats). Teach your children anti-communist views - the opposing views from MSM, Hollywood, and Academia- about god, equality vs equity, about the government being "here to help", about programmed, celebrated, encouraged and proliferated mental illnesses, about climate alarmism, everything. Consider home schools or certain private schools if you can.

Rocag said:

---

Social security is socialism. So is Medicare and Medicaid and unemployment insurance and WIC and SNAP and public education and many other popular programs.

Americans love socialism as long as you don't call it socialism.

---

Taxing and spending on democratically agreed upon legislated spending programs. You can twist the definition of socialism to claim that is what it is. But not really.

It is social spending of tax revenues from a capitalist economy with extensive private property rights.

Socialism is confiscation and political distribution or complete regulatory control and political distribution of the allocation of all productive output by government. heavy taxation and spending on social programs is a step in the direction of socialism but it isn't there. The property is private. The profits are private. The distribution of production is based on ownership and contracts and markets, not government policy and manipulation.

I know both sides like to play loose with socialism in regards to taxation and spending, but fundamentally it isn't socialism until that taxation is onerously confiscatory such that it continuously reduces private wealth towards zero or outright complete confiscation. Right now, private wealth is still growing.

It's interesting to me how much intellectual nuance is allowed when discussing existing social welfare programs that are overwhelmingly popular in this country and yet every single proposal of expanding the social safety net are met with cries of "But that's socialism!" Where's that nuance when discussing universal health care, for example?

There's a good discussion to be had here about what is and isn't socialism, but considering most of this board seems to think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a communist I don't really expect to see it often.

What should be done? They not be allowed to hold any positions in government, ever.

What will happen? Nothing, at least while Democrats and useless Republicans are in charge, anywhere.

geoag58 said:

---

I think this political system/philosophy is a bankrupt cancer that must be cut out of our society and culture and I am beginning to not care about how that is accomplished. Anyone else feel the same way?

The left created the label far right wing extremist because they knew people would reach the point where they understand the attempted leftist takedown of our country is a real thing and must be stopped. Dan Bongino says it's not bad enough yet but there is a tipping point when the leftist authoritarians are too powerful and entrenched to stop. I think if we haven't already reached that point we will reach it before it is bad enough.

---

Public congressional hearings, lists of all people assumed to have any socialist ties, and then blacklisting and jail time.
McCarthy didn't go far enough. This country was not built on the idea that a individuals personal beliefs are allowed to contradict the government set forth in the Constitution.

Rocag said:

---

It's interesting to me how much intellectual nuance is allowed when discussing existing social welfare programs that are overwhelmingly popular in this country and yet every single proposal of expanding the social safety net are met with cries of "But that's socialism!" Where's that nuance when discussing universal health care, for example?

There's a good discussion to be had here about what is and isn't socialism, but considering most of this board seems to think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a communist I don't really expect to see it often.

---

You were the one who tried to come in here with the nuance in the first place, so you can shove it.

McCarthy 2.0

Needed desperately.

I agree, the distinction is important. It is an argument over how much is reasonable, justifiable, and effective to tax and spend and what priorities should be: economic growth versus social welfare. It gets misconstrued as partial socialism, which is a rhetorical spin but not really accurate. I myself used to call it that before I did a more detailed examination and decided it is best to be precise about what we are doing, what terminology we are using, etc. there is definitely a level of base living conditions below which the resulting level of social unrest, crime, chaos, actually becomes broadly harmful to general social stability and economic growth. That is a good point to consider setting a minimum for taxing and spending on social welfare. More than that can have unintended consequences that may do more net harm than good, and political power seeking often subverts the intention of doing the most good or focusing on the priorities the public believes are wiry the price they are willing to pay.

It's a difficult balance to deal with social beings that are both empathetic and self interested and naturally manifesting economic systems that don't neatly conform with social behaviors and population distributions.

Rocag said:

---

It's interesting to me how much intellectual nuance is allowed when discussing existing social welfare programs that are overwhelmingly popular in this country and yet every single proposal of expanding the social safety net are met with cries of "But that's socialism!" Where's that nuance when discussing universal health care, for example?

There's a good discussion to be had here about what is and isn't socialism, but considering most of this board seems to think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a communist I don't really expect to see it often.

---

Would you agree that the Deocratic Party left is fascist? Because a lot of what they do is fascist. Censoring "disinformation" for example, is extremely fascist. The government colluding with Twitter and Facebook to favor a certain political view, for example, is fascist. So, the democratic party is fascist, right?

One thing McCarthy had was a populace that was overwhelmingly opposed to Marxism. So when people were exposed as commies, they were rightfully shunned and mocked throughout society. Today, half of America is stupid and would actually embrace them.

If we had a SCOTUS that did their job, then having marxist citizens wouldn't matter. People wouldn't be able to vote themselves the spoils of others as the SCOTUS would shut that down. But since they dropped the ball, I fear that violent revolt will occur.

The country will continue to go farther left because that's what the ever increasing majority wants, anything else is fantasy.

people that vote for the party that wants to nationalize health care, and openly talks about nationalizing policing, nationalizing elections, and making permanent power grabs to eliminate checks and balances like ending the filibuster, expanding and packing courts, adding two states, and getting rid of the electoral college - they also support the party who fights tooth and nail for uncontrolled unauditable ez fraud elections, who cheer censoring the press and imprisoning political opponents. these are the same people who vote for the party who only expands the government and controls industry through expansive and expensive federal regulations and cheers on the idea of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth. this is heading fast to socialism and ultimately to communism no matter how much you want to bring up whataboutisms like the opposition still supporting grandfathered national programs such as social security and medicare.

Rocag said:

---

It's interesting to me how much intellectual nuance is allowed when discussing existing social welfare programs that are overwhelmingly popular in this country and yet every single proposal of expanding the social safety net are met with cries of "But that's socialism!" Where's that nuance when discussing universal health care, for example?

There's a good discussion to be had here about what is and isn't socialism, but considering most of this board seems to think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a communist I don't really expect to see it often.

---

They are not popular, they are required by law to participate in them.

Quote:

---

I myself used to call it that before I did a more detailed examination and decided it is best to be precise about what we are doing, what terminology we are using, etc. there is definitely a level of base living conditions below which the resulting level of social unrest, crime, chaos, actually becomes broadly harmful to general social stability and economic growth. That is a good point to consider setting a minimum for taxing and spending on social welfare.

---

I'd argue that the US government has a mandate from the Constitution to "promote the general Welfare" of the nation and that addressing those items is a natural part of that. In general, if it were proposed that the government should seize complete control over some industry I'd probably be opposed to that. An example would be claiming federal ownership of all oil and gas deposits which would be socialist in nature. Other industries I might not be opposed to. I strongly disagree with the entire concept of private prisons, for example. There's balance to be had somewhere in there.

But as it refers to this thread, how can a person answer "What should be done about socialism?" if they haven't first clearly defined it?

Rocag said:

---

It's interesting to me how much intellectual nuance is allowed when discussing existing social welfare programs that are overwhelmingly popular in this country and yet every single proposal of expanding the social safety net are met with cries of "But that's socialism!" Where's that nuance when discussing universal health care, for example?

There's a good discussion to be had here about what is and isn't socialism, but considering most of this board seems to think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a communist I don't really expect to see it often.

---

There is no nuance when it comes to UHC because there is nothing to discuss. It isn't remotely affordable in a country as diverse and unhealthy as we are. It would cost trillions and trillions more than we already spend and we've already been downgraded as a country by the credit rating agencies and any independent entity out there assessing our current spend and debt trends.

Several countries that had UHC have added parallel, private models in the last several years because UHC is unaffordable and highly inefficient. Because...shock!...it's run by the government.

Who and how are you going to pay for it?

Rocag said:

---

It's interesting to me how much intellectual nuance is allowed when discussing existing social welfare programs that are overwhelmingly popular in this country and yet every single proposal of expanding the social safety net are met with cries of "But that's socialism!" Where's that nuance when discussing universal health care, for example?

There's a good discussion to be had here about what is and isn't socialism, but considering most of this board seems to think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a communist I don't really expect to see it often.

---

geoag58 said:

---

I think this political system/philosophy is a bankrupt cancer that must be cut out of our society and culture and I am beginning to not care about how that is accomplished. Anyone else feel the same way?

The left created the label far right wing extremist because they knew people would reach the point where they understand the attempted leftist takedown of our country is a real thing and must be stopped. Dan Bongino says it's not bad enough yet but there is a tipping point when the leftist authoritarians are too powerful and entrenched to stop. I think if we haven't already reached that point we will reach it before it is bad enough.

---

I will *******ize a quote I heard from Dan Carlin's Hardcore History in one of his WWII podcasts. Hitler once said that to defeat fascism you must become fascist. And that was part of his strategy and evil genius because he understood how to take advantage and manipulate societies.

In a liberal society, the ne'er do wells simply take advantage of the existing system to affect change from the inside. See Cloward-Piven here in the US. See Islam in Western Europe.

Frankly, I think this is inevitable and there is not much to be done about it other than rebuild out of the ashes when the USA ultimately fails.

In the meantime, I leave you with this:

Americans already spend about twice as much per person, per year on health care as compared to people in other western, developed countries just to be the only nation in the world in which medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy and the poor are forced to beg for help on GoFundMe. That being said, this isn't really about how we pay for universal health care. It's about whether or not universal health care is socialism. Many on the right have long argued that it is.

geoag58 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

It's interesting to me how much intellectual nuance is allowed when discussing existing social welfare programs that are overwhelmingly popular in this country and yet every single proposal of expanding the social safety net are met with cries of "But that's socialism!" Where's that nuance when discussing universal health care, for example?

There's a good discussion to be had here about what is and isn't socialism, but considering most of this board seems to think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a communist I don't really expect to see it often.

---

---

Our country has never been perfect but a moral person does not take advantage of systems or people to benefit themselves. If the left were sincere they would promote Judeo Christian values. Instead the left does everything in their power to tear down our Judeo-Christian heritage to bring about the destruction of our country. The left wants to destroy our system to make the state all powerful. The left veils their evil intent in faux concern for the plight of perceived marginalized people.

geoag58 said:

---

I think this political system/philosophy is a bankrupt cancer that must be cut out of our society and culture and I am beginning to not care about how that is accomplished. Anyone else feel the same way?

The left created the label far right wing extremist because they knew people would reach the point where they understand the attempted leftist takedown of our country is a real thing and must be stopped. Dan Bongino says it's not bad enough yet but there is a tipping point when the leftist authoritarians are too powerful and entrenched to stop. I think if we haven't already reached that point we will reach it before it is bad enough.

---

Same was said of Jews one time

Rocag said:

---

Americans already spend about twice as much per person, per year on health care as compared to people in other western, developed countries just to be the only nation in the world in which medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy and the poor are forced to beg for help on GoFundMe. That being said, this isn't really about how we pay for universal health care. It's about whether or not universal health care is socialism. Many on the right have long argued that it is.

---

Real socialism (going by the definition of it) is impossible in a society and culture as large and as diverse as ours. People on here use that term to effectively mean communism because socialism can only exist as steppingstone to communism with the latter being the real intent by most marxists. They are effectively one and the same. The former begats the latter.

The problem with it is that socialism/communism always results in the state taking ownership of the means of production and resource distribution which is another reason why the term essentially ends up meaning the government takes it over and runs it into the ground. That's really all the end result we need to be aware of when it comes to these terms. It's been proven throughout history and is why we conservatives blast it 24/7.

As far as the US is concerned, I would say one of our main problems are that we've let insurance companies take over the industry which has added enormous middle layer costs that are unnecessary. There is opportunity for reform there. The problem is that the government automatically assumes they can solve the problem so then they just make things worse. Reform insurance and keep government out of it as much as possible and you would see improvements. In fact, here is a 1-week-old article where Chief Warren realizes that Obamacare has made healthcare more expensive, so now she and others want to get the government even more in control!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacare-medical-loss-ratio-elizabeth-warren-mike-braun-letter-healthcare-pbm-af77e284?st=xjdxx1jjqhc3o65&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Always the outcome bolded:

Quote:

---

It took 13 years, but Elizabeth Warren is at long last acknowledging that ObamaCare has increased healthcare prices and industry consolidation. Who would have believed it? Government price controls and profit caps have resulted in unintended consequences.

---

Let's also not forget quiet rule changes like Biden did just a couple of months ago where he canned catastrophic plans forcing young people to have to pay high-cost Obamacare plans in order to receive healthcare. Most will probably roll without it now because they simply can't afford it but therein lies more evidence for you that that government run UHC is the plan. Hell, many Democrats stated that was the plan back when Obamacare was announced. It was their steppingstone to full government UHC. Not that anyone with brain folds didn't know that at the time.

In addition, as diverse as we are we are and as no holds barred as we are when it comes to diet, we are always going to have worse outcomes than some other countries. This point right here is what is always ignored by the left on this topic. For years (not so much anymore because I think we finally broke this people with logic), you would see Democrats use the Scandinavians as the gold standard for UHC health outcomes. Never mind they are (were) a mono-ethnic white culture all pulling the same direction. Culture and ethnicity matters when it comes to healthcare. Sucks for the left to hear that, but it's reality.

Get rid of crony capitalism, where the government picks the winners and losers.

Also, both sides need to stop the practice of socializing the losses for corporations, and privatizing the wins. This hurts the American, while enriching the ruling class(often times, it seems like those in the left conflate capitalism with whatever the hell we have now). This also removes the appeal that some may perceive when it comes to socialism versus capitalism.

Stop being distracted by culture war bull**** and focus on the economy and making sure that people can put food on the table.
TL;DR: capitalism should put money where its mouth is, to demonstrate why it's better than socialism.(the argument could be made that the reverse should be true as well, but here we are).

Rocag said:

---

Americans already spend about twice as much per person, per year on health care as compared to people in other western, developed countries just to be the only nation in the world in which medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy and the poor are forced to beg for help on GoFundMe. That being said, this isn't really about how we pay for universal health care. It's about whether or not universal health care is socialism. Many on the right have long argued that it is.

---

Government control of healthcare which leads to control of the people is the goal of the left. They don't care about the people, they only care about the power. Government meddling with tax policy encouraging profitable large corporations to provide gold plated health insurance sets the healthcare market and in turn either excludes from the market or creates an extreme government caused burden for less affluent people. I would like to see no tax advantage for any healthcare related expenditure and see what happens to the real cost of healthcare.

Quote:

---

Stop being distracted by culture war bull**** and focus on the economy and making sure that people can put food on the table.

---

I don't disagree on the latter part of that, but the stop being distracted by culture war bullcrap is a large part of the reason that we find ourselves in the craptastic position that we are now.

The people who push for all the liberal causes of the last 50+ years never stop. They get their crap normalized into society incrementally, and then one day you wake up to a reality that includes grown ass men putting on dresses and calling themselves women, and if you so much as give that a sideways glance, you are a bigot.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Quote:

---

Stop being distracted by culture war bull**** and focus on the economy and making sure that people can put food on the table.

---

I don't disagree on the latter part of that, but the stop being distracted by culture war bullcrap is a large part of the reason that we find ourselves in the craptastic position that we are now.

The people who push for all the liberal causes of the last 50+ years never stop. They get their crap normalized into society incrementally, and then one day you wake up to a reality that includes grown ass men putting on dresses and calling themselves women, and if you so much as give that a sideways glance, you are a bigot.

---

Sure, agree to disagree though.
Personally, I don't have a lot of problem picking a side on the culture work, as long as someone is not harming others(though, I could see the argument on both sides, whether or not something is harmful.) I would just prefer if the economy was in a better shape,also acknowledging that the economy is not the stock market.

Cede the 3 West Coast states (which sucks because they are geographically beautiful) and are effectively lost now. They give up US citizenship, live in their Utopia, then in a couple years when it all falls apart we annex it back and they can maybe stay but as non-voting citizens.

This has been going on for 50 years. Slowly we opened the door to cultures that do not share our values;
Amnesty laws and the 14th Amendment were not properly applied. That added to the thought that evil people can be changed by giving them money and forgiving their transgressions is the right thing to do.

Get the picture. We brought this on ourselves and the only way out is to vote properly. Every election starting with you locals all the way the line.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Get rid of crony capitalism, where the government picks the winners and losers.

Also, both sides need to stop the practice of socializing the losses for corporations, and privatizing the wins. This hurts the American, while enriching the ruling class(often times, it seems like those in the left conflate capitalism with whatever the hell we have now). This also removes the appeal that some may perceive when it comes to socialism versus capitalism.

Stop being distracted by culture war bull**** and focus on the economy and making sure that people can put food on the table.
TL;DR: capitalism should put money where its mouth is, to demonstrate why it's better than socialism.(the argument could be made that the reverse should be true as well, but here we are).

---

Agree on crony capitalism.

Disagree on culture war like Cinco said. You won't have a good economy if the far left keeps winning the culture war which leads into...

An argument cannot be made that socialism is better than capitalism because the former violates the basic rule of economics and ignores human behavior.

Socialism is an impossible idea outside of a village setting. If you would like the government to just take control of everything and then REALLY pick winners and losers with a heavy dose of oppression and murder for the losers then that is your political ideology.