This distinction creates some confusion within Freepers, who cannot believe that there could be anyone to Hillary's left.
stephenjohnbanker as a typical lack of nuance:
It’s kinda fun watching one commie, out commie the OTHER commie : )Personal Responsibility don't know much about history:
Lenin had his Trotsky....fieldmarshaldj knows it's all Communists and socialists these days:
The public has been voting for Socialists for President for most of the past century, at least since Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. Zero is a Communist, so they went full retard in 2008 and ‘12. Of course, his ringer “opponent” Willard is a Socialist (as was McQueeg), so...exit82 is all over the map with his analyses:
Look at all those mentally ill folks!TheGipperWasRight concentrates on speculative pre-schadenfreude:
Meantime, Bernie is at the podium thinking “They love me, they really love me...”
Hillary is somewhere throwing lamps, and her staff on the webpage for Wayfair.com for replacements.
I’d really hate to be within 50 miles of her when the realization that she will go to her grave having never been president. It will be a 9.9 off the charts psycho meltdown.Pajamajan knows Democrats hide their socialism well:
IMO-People voted for the first black president-Who ran as a moderate with some conservative traits, (based soley on what O said during his campaigns-not what he's actually done as POTUS.)struggle has this un-Freepish idea:
One thing I respect about Bernie is that he's up front about being a Socialist. He doesn't try to trick people by pretending to to be for what he doesn't actually believe in.
Lol, I have a strong feeling that the Democrat field is going to be horrible unless they get someone else - the majority of American voters will vote for gays, muslims, anything...but the majority won’t vote for socialists.FlingWingFlyer hates all the voters:
Hillary Rodham is not fit to be POTUS. Only a brain dead jackass would even consider voting for her. Sure doesn’t say much for those living in our country these days.Personal Responsibility has decided Hillary is moderate now...
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The dems have moved WAY left of Hillary’s positions and Sanders’ positions are (and have been) WAY left. It’s possible that he’s interpreting it as his time to make a serious run. We know The media will not go after him in a serious enough way to throw him off his message.dsrtsage has decided to preempt the coming calls of misogyny merely for calling Hillary a hag or whatnot:
Anybody who doesn’t vote for Hillary is an extreme woman hating misogynistalloysteel starts out hating the supporters, but digresses to hate Hillary:
These are the exact same people who were out there heckling Scott Walker, and who occupied the State Capitol, defecating and urinating in the corners, and generally behaving in the very worst “Occupy Wall Street” manner. You know them by whom they applaud, and Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, is by default placed in the same bracket, in their minds, as Scott Walker.SVTCobra03 has a conspiracy theory even for victory:
This is all part of the Plan. The demonRATS want to lose so that the republicans will be blamed when the global collapse comes right after the election.
nuance, thy name is not freeper ...
ReplyDeleteShe are the communisss! Hillarrrrreeeeeeee!!!!!
ReplyDeleteShe murder! RumRed! RUM RED! SHE MURDER. RUM RED!!! HILLLLARRREEEEE!!!
(this message brought to you by the Breadsticks for RimJob Foundation)
How could you forget to include....
DeleteBENGHAZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!
You need to work on your freeper mode. :)
As a center-right conservative (not a Freeper type lunatic) one thing both the left and right can agree on is too many politicos today are corporate-type out to screw the middle class to please the USCoC.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest problem with liberals is that they see a bigger government as the solution. Bigger government will only lead to more corporatism/fascism as big companies bribe big government into looking the other way and leading to monopolies and oligopolies. Small business will be crushed as they lack the resources to bribe/lobby the big government.
Tell us how 8 years of GW Bush and a Republican congress led to small government and less fascism and fewer monopolies. I'm all ears.
DeleteI don't think you get what big government actually does. It means more regulations and higher taxes on the upper income brackets. So the companies will be less able to bribe the government. My problem with most conservatives is that they're still living in the 1980s. News flash...Reagan is dead and his economic policies were terrible for the country. It's time for the left to take back the country and show America how good our economic policies are.
DeleteHey moron,
DeleteCA is a perfect example of libtopia. Highest number of welfare recipients, highest gap between rich and poor, and least social mobility.
It means more regulations and higher taxes on the upper income brackets. So the companies will be less able to bribe the government.
Riiiight, and of course government will be perfect, 100% implementation, no corruption and kickbacks etc. Buddy, I worked in the beltway contracting and saw for myself the disgusting corruption and nepotism. BTW, NoVA is big liberal stronghold.
It's time for the left to take back the country and show America how good our economic policies are.
Right CA has shown all of us how good leftist economic policies are.
You are the biggest moron on this forum. Debating you is like talking to a wall.
I understand the impulse, and rent-seeking is absolutely a problem.
DeleteBut there is a countervailing problem with smaller government, and that is unfettered corporate power.
The people are not well served by the market or the government; a mixed system that sets each against the other is our best bet.
From there, it's about line drawing, and I trust our Republic marginally more than the invisible hand.
CA is a perfect example of libtopia.
DeleteCalifornia is hardly a "libtopia". You forget that it has previously elected a long string of Republican governors, and that the state senate has until recently never had an absolute majority with which to carry out any truly liberal policies.
Riiiight, and of course government will be perfect, 100% implementation, no corruption and kickbacks etc.
I never said it would be perfect. But with more regulation and higher taxes, the ability of a corporation or special interest to bribe the government would be lessened.
You are the biggest moron on this forum. Debating you is like talking to a wall.
Since you haven't actually debated me and have resorted to mostly ad hominem, logical fallacies and easily disproved right wing talking points, I'm curious to know how you would know that.
Seeing that corporations have bribed the government to their own benefit, and reasoning that the answer is to reduce the influence of government, is akin to noticing that the mob has bought off the cops in your town and deciding that the best thing for law and order is to disband the police and let the criminals handle the matter.
DeleteThere's a myth in this country, largely originating with the rhetoric of our founding documents, that power taken away from the government will automagically return to "the People." The problem with that idea, and the danger it brings with it, is that the assumed return of power doesn't actually *happen* without some mechanism to make it so. Otherwise, a vacancy in the control of power does what it always does, which is tend to devolve to the next-most-powerful still standing.
Thus, when you disempower the government to reign in the multinationals that use regulation to help them dominate the market, that power actually tends to go to *those exact same corporations* already awash with wealth and power from their dominance of the market. Any steps taken to prevent this, done on behalf of the general populace, will effectively consitute an expansion of government and/or government power.
The myth of power effortlessly returning to that vague, nebulous entity called "the People" is going to be the death of the Republic, one of these years.
Can't argue with any of you, especially last Anon. Removing power from the Federal Government should, in theory, return it to the people by way of the statehouses. If it does not work, as you say "nature abhors a vacuum. If it does work, well bribery and corruption work equally well in a decentralized manner, and state governments are probably cheaper to bribe.
DeleteYet the places where Liberal policies have held sway for a long time are pretty much shit holes.
Yet the places where Liberal policies have held sway for a long time are pretty much shit holes.
DeleteCitation? I know Detroit is pretty much the primary example given by most on the right, but what about other liberal cities, like San Francisco? And what about places run by conservatives that are shit holes, like Mississippi? I don't think you can solely blame "liberal" or "conservative" policies for one place being a shit hole.
That wasn't the point at all, but thanks for injecting racism into the conversation.
DeleteReagan also raised taxes 7 out of the 8 years in office, largely shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. When conservatives bitch about wealth redistribution it's goddamn hilarious. If conservatives were serious about attacking corporate power over the government, they would support campaign finance reform, stricter bank regulations, and more regulation on the influence of lobbyist.
ReplyDeleteAs a practical socialist, I would've voted for McCain in 2000 as he was then the only main stream candidate talking about campaign finance reform. But after Bush unleashed the dogs on him in the primary, he conformed to what GOP mainline wants, kowtowing to christian conservatives and shutting up about finance and campaign reform.
Social Conservatives still haven't figured out that they're being played by the Republicans. A president can't ban abortion, a president can't do much to make a constitutional amendment pass, regarding marriage, abortion or an other Socon wet dream. Yet they still believe that if they get a right wing nutjob like Cruz elected as president, he'll force their agenda through.
DeleteTheir fantasies of small government and liberty don't apply to equality for women, Gay rights or keeping religion out of the political sphere. They cry for liberty but really want a theocracy.
I do support campaign finance reform. The idea that a few wealthy donors can have a disproportionate effect on an election is not only wrong, but it doesn't speak terribly well of the electorate as a whole.
DeleteThe question for our practical socialist is - "Do you support campaign finance reform?" After all, last election 9 of the top 10 donors in terms of cash amounts to political parties were unions .... If you want to remove business and lobbyists, remove unions as well.
9 out of 10? Not according to OpenSecrets. According to them, in the 2012 election only 2 union contributors, UAW and SEIU broke the top 10.
Deletehttps://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/toporgs.php?view=fc&cycle=2012&type=src
Detroit and Flint were enviable places to live until Roger Smith, Henry Ford, and 12 years of John Engler worked their "magic" on the state. We had one major industry in the economy, and they dismantled it. Ann Arbor is pretty liberal, and it's a great place to live and work.
DeleteI'm not talking about disbanding corporations, just limiting influence on elections, I'm perfectly fine doing the same with unions.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was younger I thought getting a third party into the elections would fix problems. I used to figure that a Green Party vs Libertarian would be more representative of people's beliefs if the cronyism and corporatism were removed from elections.
I don't know a lot about the elections in Europe, but the English elections sure seem to point out that a multiparty system has few benefits over the two party system. All acknowledging that the English system is hardly comparable to ours.