100 House Democrats Favor The Horrors Of Socialism

In a House vote today 86 Democrats voted for wanting the horrors of socialism while another 14 refused to vote against the horrors of socialism by simply voting "present". How sad. I will give 109 Democrats (a small majority of Democrats) a pat on the back for voting against the horrors of socialism but the party as a whole has a lot of splainen to do as to why about half of House Democrats voted for the horrors of socialism. It's quite mind boggling.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/vote-condemn-horrors-socialism-splits-174330915.html

 

Meh, doesn't surprise me. The road to hell is paved in good intentions...and socialism relies on that.

 

Why would Republicans push for such a vote. It seems to me all it is is a gotcha vote that means nothing.

 

Why would Democrats push for a vote to condemn all hate? Was that too a "gotcha vote that means nothing"?

 

Nevada progressives aren't happy:

 

Did they have such a vote?

 

Yes. It was right after Ilhan Omar had made what many believed to be antisemitic remarks. Instead of censuring her they passed a resolution to condemn all hate.

 

Right, and what she said wasn’t even antisemitic. If I condemn fascism is that “white hate” or “anti-white” language since fascism is white supremacy? No. So if I condemn Zionism it’s not antisemitic either.

 

What “horrors” did they call for? What are the “horrors” of socialism? There are none. What you’re fussing about is the specific policies imposed and implemented relating to a few specific circumstances determined by a few specific features of a few specific countries in an effort to establish socialism. But those policies are not policies of socialism. Socialism HAS no policies.

 

Link doesn't work

 

Nothing like creating a resolution that asks for legislators to vote on a strawman.

Only Republicans would think of something so asinine as that.

That would be like someone drafting a resolution to vote against the horrors of vulture capitalism.

It would be like voting on a resolution that denounces sharia law in American law.

No one is for horrors in a democracy. .

No one is for vultures in a democracy.

No one is for sharia law in a democracy.

Both are strawman arguments because there are no totalitarian socialists in congress and the senate, and there are no vulture capitalists in the congress and the senate, and there are no legislators drafting law based on sharia law in the congress and senate.

To draft resolutions against things that do not exist is voting on a strawman, and a waste of taxpayer money. Assuming 'democratic socialism' is the same thing as Stalinism is a strawman. No one on the left is for Stalin. to vote against that isn't for Stalinism, it's voting against the very idea that such bill should be wasting everyone's time when they could be doing something productive.

I would vote against asinine resolutions that suppose something exists when it doesn't, and that vote would not mean I'm for it. It would mean I'm against the morons who drafted it.

WTFU.

 

I get it, you're a socialist. Socialism involves the state owning all means of production and distribution.

Now, I support policies that allow the state to do what it does best, and let private entreprise do what it does best.

I"ve outlined this idea in a thread I started a few years ago: Socialism for needs, capitalism for wants.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

Wolff is for communism. His idea is almost identical to the anarcho-syndicalism espoused by Noam Chomsky, which is that production should be worker owned,
and the decisions should be made by the workers, who, of course, are doing 'all the work'. Get rid of the hierarchy, they say. No more bosses, they say.

But they are not doing all the work. Managing it all is work, too. Not all work is blue collar, work is work. I"ve run businesses and if I had let my employees make all the decisions, I guarantee you we would be out of business in no time. Both Wolff's and Chomsky's ideas on this are bunk. Yeah, I know they can find one or two examples where it worked, in some fashion, but the examples are not on a large scale. Kibbutz's can work, but they are small and a monolithic group. but on the whole, for a large nation, a non monolithic nation, it can't work. If it were a good system, it would have been much more prevalent by now.

Now, I have a lot of respect for Chomsky, but Chomsky has never run a business, he has been a tenured professor for the better part of the 20th century, and never
had to operate in the real world of the market place to understand how it works.

Both assume that to work for wages is basically a kind of slavery. It really isn't, but a lot that is wrong with it can be solved with a good union based economy.

 

The United States of America is a deeply socialist society.
For a start collectively you have created roads, bridges, tunnels.
Socialism in action.
Let alone the armed forces, police, prisons, schools, parks, emergency services, the justice system and more.
America embraced socialism many many years ago.
I suppose it is possible that many don’t know the meaning of the word and throw it around for some kind of shock horror effect, but accept it, America is a socialist country.

 

Just so you know.
That bus picked up your kids for school? Socialism
The school those kids were taken? Socialism.
The road the bus drove on? Socialism.
The money that paid the teachers and bought their chalk? Socialism.
I hope that I need not go on with the very long list. We already embrace a certain level of Socialism so put away your fear of horrors.

 

romney is, at least, a former "vulture capitalist." ("bain capital" has destroyed many american companies. ) .

 

Fascinating.

'Socialism', now a political pejorative when used in the 'socialist' sobriquet sense, has lost its dictionary-defined meaning. The nearest I can come to a present day meaning is to equate it with 'them': you know, the people responsible for bad stuff.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

'Them' bastids.

 

Hi, StillBlue.

Yup! As an aside, if you wish to hear a master of name-calling in action, try the Mark Levin Show on AM radio. He's now reached the point where his palaver's almost entirely vituperative. For sheer amusement, also check the Jesse Kelly Show. Mr. Kelly [Self-identified as 'Dr. Kelly',] has taken a page from the playbook of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. He sees communists almost everywhere he looks.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Link doesn’t work. What alleged socialism did these Dems vote for?

 

What are the horrors of socialism? Hundred of millions dead in Russia and China when it was imposed on the population. Millions more in other countries where its leaders imposed it. There are also many millions more who were imprisoned for differing with system.

 

Yes.

 

"The Horrors of Socialism"?

Did they also do a vote for the "Horrors of Capitalism"?

Its not like either in extreme is good. You need a balance for a functional society.

 

imposed on the population? lolololololololololol

you do realize that the romanovs ( eg "Ivan the terrible") and alexandra's "confessor" were doing to those people? for centuries

and chaing? he and his mandarins spent america's foreign aid on rhino horn and elk fuzz while the imperial japanese were raping nanking and slaughtering chinese in the eastern cities.

and i'd like a breakdown of those numbers. hundred of millions? that is like a mild case of the flu compared to the full blown covid of capitalism.

 

Seems like a good use of the legislative branch's time.

 

shouldn't they be fixing inflation lowering gas prices?