Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism?

Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism?

+6
TEOTWAWKI
Floridatexan
Sal
Markle
Hospital Bob
Wordslinger
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 6]

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:

But creative writing is only commendable when it drives a valid point.  And that's where you sometimes fall down in your writing.

That thing that keeps sailing over your head?

That's the point, Bob.

Guest


Guest

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:
Bob wrote:

But creative writing is only commendable when it drives a valid point.  And that's where you sometimes fall down in your writing.

That thing that keeps sailing over your head?

That's the point, Bob.

What keeps sailing over my head,  the "point" as you say,  is that the political dialogue in this country is NOT a fight between socialism and capitalism.
When in actuality THAT is THE very best way to categorize it.

The "private" vs the "public".  "Government" vs "private enterprise".  "Socialism" vs "capitalism".   It's all essentially the same and it all corresponds to "liberal" vs "conservative".  And "progressive" vs "conservative".  And "democrat" vs "republican".

In fact the whole goddamn current election,  at least the part of it which covers our domestic economic policy,   can be summarized by saying it's a battle between "bidness" and "guvmint".  Which is essentially the same goddamn thing as "capitalism vs socialism".

And if anyone doesn't see that, then my only question is what fucking planet are you from?

polecat

polecat

The four cornerstones of the American political psyche are 1) emotion substituted for thought, 2) fear, 3) ignorance and 4) propaganda

Joe Bageant

If middle-class Americans do not feel threatened by the slow encroachment of the police state or the Patriot Act, it is because they live comfortably enough and exercise their liberties very lightly, never testing the boundaries. You never know you are in a prison unless you try the door.

Joe Bageant

The reality is that our economy now consists of driving 250 million vehicles around the suburbs and malls and eating fried chicken. We don't manufacture much. We just burn up ever scarcer petroleum in the ever-expanding suburbs built with mortgage money lent to people who haven't a clue.

Joe Bageant

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Okay I give up. There is no battle between private enterprise and public enterprise in this country. Both love each other, there is no conflict, and the two political parties, the politicians and the people (including the posters to this forum) are all in agreement.
And I'm just an ignorant uninformed dumbass for believing otherwise.

Carry on.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Next topic:  Does the sun rise in the east?

Since I'm too dumb to even have an opinion on that,  let's open that up for discussion so I can get educated. I'm sure there's gonna plenty about that which "slides over my head".



Last edited by Bob on 9/23/2015, 1:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
Bob wrote:

But creative writing is only commendable when it drives a valid point.  And that's where you sometimes fall down in your writing.

That thing that keeps sailing over your head?

That's the point, Bob.

What keeps sailing over my head,  the "point" as you say,  is that the political dialogue in this country is NOT a fight between socialism and capitalism.
When in actuality THAT is THE very best way to categorize it.

The "private" vs the "public".  "Government" vs "private enterprise".  "Socialism" vs "capitalism".   It's all essentially the same and it all corresponds to "liberal" vs "conservative".  And "progressive" vs "conservative".  And "democrat" vs "republican".

In fact the whole goddamn current election,  at least the part of it which covers our domestic economic policy,   can be summarized by saying it's a battle between "bidness" and "guvmint".  Which is essentially the same goddamn thing as "capitalism vs socialism".

And if anyone doesn't see that,  then my only question is what fucking planet are you from?



A better framing would be "Policy based on information and empirical examination that is meant to address a series of assessed outstanding issues" vs "Tax cuts, war, christianity, and ignoring science...regardless of what issues are or aren't present."

Using words like "capitalism" and "socialism" (or any other ism's) is about as useless as it gets in political discussion as it doesn't really mean anything concrete.  Simply state the policy and argue its merits.  Who cares what "ism" an uneducated moron categorizes that policy into.

If we simply state the policies and argue their merits, we will quickly see that one side has absolutely nothing substantive to offer.  If we simply state the policies and argue their merits, we will quickly see one side offering tax incentivized corporate profit sharing programs, infrastructure bills to be offset by closure of tax loopholes for the 1%, subsidized college education, diplomatic solutions meant to slow nuclear proliferation etc., etc.   On the other side, we will see neverending talk of email servers, fabricated videos about planned parenthood, fabricated persecution of christians, etc. etc.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
Bob wrote:

But creative writing is only commendable when it drives a valid point.  And that's where you sometimes fall down in your writing.

That thing that keeps sailing over your head?

That's the point, Bob.

What keeps sailing over my head,  the "point" as you say,  is that the political dialogue in this country is NOT a fight between socialism and capitalism.
When in actuality THAT is THE very best way to categorize it.

The "private" vs the "public".  "Government" vs "private enterprise".  "Socialism" vs "capitalism".   It's all essentially the same and it all corresponds to "liberal" vs "conservative".  And "progressive" vs "conservative".  And "democrat" vs "republican".

In fact the whole goddamn current election,  at least the part of it which covers our domestic economic policy,   can be summarized by saying it's a battle between "bidness" and "guvmint".  Which is essentially the same goddamn thing as "capitalism vs socialism".

And if anyone doesn't see that,  then my only question is what fucking planet are you from?



A better framing would be "Policy based on information and empirical examination that is meant to address a series of assessed outstanding issues" vs "Tax cuts, war, christianity, and ignoring science...regardless of what issues are or aren't present."

Using words like "capitalism" and "socialism" (or any other ism's) is about as useless as it gets in political discussion as it doesn't really mean anything concrete.  Simply state the policy and argue its merits.  Who cares what "ism" an uneducated moron categorizes that policy into.

If we simply state the policies and argue their merits, we will quickly see that one side has absolutely nothing substantive to offer.  If we simply state the policies and argue their merits, we will quickly see one side offering tax incentivized corporate profit sharing programs, infrastructure bills to be offset by closure of tax loopholes for the 1%, subsidized college education, diplomatic solutions meant to slow nuclear proliferation etc., etc.   On the other side, we will see neverending talk of email servers, fabricated videos about planned parenthood, fabricated persecution of christians, etc. etc.

In other words, one side is always wrong and the other side is always right. Got it.
But I gotta tell you, it sounds a lot like God vs the Devil. And not being much into that sort of thing, it probably will all go over the head of a dumbass cowardly fence-sitting toaster like me.

Sal

Sal

Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you to wrap your little pinhead around, Bob.

I love capitalism, but think it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

Boards loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

FlaTex loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

Wordslinger loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

Democrats love capitalism, but think it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

MSNBC loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

The Daily Kos loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

PkrBum hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

Markle hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

Teo hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

PeeDawg hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

FAUX News claims to hate socialism and claims to think it's the same as fascism.*

Republicans claim to hate socialism and claim to think it's the same as fascism.*

* - they really don't hate socialism, they just say so to fire up the rubes.

Bob thinks it's all a wrastlin' match, feels morally superior, but always seems to wind up voting for the Republicans.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you to wrap your little pinhead around, Bob.

I love capitalism, but think it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

Boards loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

FlaTex loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

Wordslinger loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

Democrats love capitalism, but think it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

MSNBC loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

The Daily Kos loves capitalism, but thinks it needs to be held in check through socialistic policies.

PkrBum hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

Markle hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

Teo hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

PeeDawg hates socialism and thinks it's the same as fascism.

FAUX News claims to hate socialism and claims to think it's the same as fascism.*

Republicans claim to hate socialism and claim to think it's the same as fascism.*

* - they really don't hate socialism, they just say so to fire up the rubes.

Bob thinks it's all a wrastlin' match, feels morally superior, but always seems to wind up voting for the Republicans.

That's A LOT better writing that the werthers candy thing. AND the "bothsides'ism" thing too. I think that proves my earlier point about your ability to write. lol

But it's still a totally partisan take on this, same as bds' take on it was.
And if any of the ones you referred to have ever written posts to express your love of capitalism BEFORE THIS THREAD, I defy you to provide any evidence of it by showing me those posts. lol

polecat

polecat

Top 10 Ways To Anger Any Republican When They Complain About Socialism.

1: War

The Pentagon – every invasion that came from it, drones, bullets, guns, bombs, ships, planes, you name it – is all paid for with tax money. Literally every penny of it is tied to socialism, yet inexplicably war is the favorite past time of every Republican.

2: Sports

Yes, sports. Big sports. The bigger the better, and they all need stadiums in which to play. Where do these stadiums come from? They are mostly, if not completely, funded by taxpayer money. Yes, that’s right. Local and sometimes state taxes go to fund sport stadium construction because they are “great job creators,” if you consider being paid minimum wage to hawk 11 dollar cups of warm beer a great job. Remember this one when some self-taught economist says the government cannot create jobs.

3: Social Security

A substantial amount of Republicans are on Social Security, despite the fact it is evil Socialism. Even the name “Social” Security, is a dead giveaway. It is funded completely through taxes and pays out a public benefit. If you ask them why they choose to not burn their checks every month, they will tell you it is because they happen to personally benefit from it. The excuse of “I paid into it” is not valid if they try to use it. They also paid into subsidies for Big Oil but they do not get free gas.

4: Medicare

A lot of Republicans literally cannot live without it. Medicare is exactly what every other modestly advanced or better nation on the planet has (except they have it for all citizens), but is too socialistic for America. Yet, if you went to take it from them they would probably call it tyranny and/or death panels.

5: The entire Republican party

Quite literally every single elected Republican from the most local and lowly public servant, through state and federal offices, to the presidency itself is funded completely by socialist tax dollars. How would a Republican live with themselves without their Republican legislators telling them to elect or re-elect them so they can prove government can’t get anything done?

6: Corporate bailouts and subsidies

Republicans love the guys who give tax money, or even deficit spending, to corporate billionaires. Your average Republican is not a corporate billionaire, so it is a bit confusing. However, they are very pro-billionaire welfare. Always make sure to remember that the single mom with two kids who needs 100 bucks extra per month for food is just a whore and deserves nothing.

7: State and federal roads and bridges

Imagine if there were no overpasses for people to hang anti-Obama signs from, or no streets on which to have Confederate flag marches; people would complain it was restricting their freedom of speech. You don’t have freedom of speech on private roads though, and they never remember this. Socialism just saved the Republicans’ first amendment rights.

8: Practically all snow removal

With very few exceptions on very local levels, all road-based snow removal is socialistic. Taxpayer funding covers it every time, and every Republican demands that their road be plowed first. In this case it benefits them personally, so we can say “selfish socialism” is very pro-American.

9: Border protection

You know how it is by now. When you say “border protection” within 10 yards of any Republican they immediately shout and grab the nearest thing that looks like a gun, then complain how the immigrants are stealing jobs. “We have to secure the border!” they cry. As usual, where does the money come from? You guessed it. socialist taxes.

10: The Internet

Absolutely colossal amounts of Republican belly-aching and bitching about Socialism occur online. Without the government, the internet would not exist. DARPA, a socialistically funded agency, along with other governmental entities, invented the internet. Next time you get a colorful email full of bad grammar from your Tea Party relative, remind them that email is fueled by socialism and request they cancel their internet service.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Jesus,  I may be as dumb as a rock,  but it looks like my contribution to this thread has now got you liberal/progressive/democrat types saying you love capitalism.  

Donald Trump wasn't able to do that.  Neither was Bernie Sanders or Carly Fioriana or Hillary Clinton or Ben Carson.  Or Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity.  Or Reince Preibus or Sally Wasserman Schultz.  Or any other political celebrity for that matter.

So if that's dumbness,  then I'm rather proud of my dumbness.  lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Of course I had to edit the post because I got the names Ben and Bernie confused with their last names. So I'm not proud of that.
But I'll just chalk that up to old age senility.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
Bob wrote:

But creative writing is only commendable when it drives a valid point.  And that's where you sometimes fall down in your writing.

That thing that keeps sailing over your head?

That's the point, Bob.

What keeps sailing over my head,  the "point" as you say,  is that the political dialogue in this country is NOT a fight between socialism and capitalism.
When in actuality THAT is THE very best way to categorize it.

The "private" vs the "public".  "Government" vs "private enterprise".  "Socialism" vs "capitalism".   It's all essentially the same and it all corresponds to "liberal" vs "conservative".  And "progressive" vs "conservative".  And "democrat" vs "republican".

In fact the whole goddamn current election,  at least the part of it which covers our domestic economic policy,   can be summarized by saying it's a battle between "bidness" and "guvmint".  Which is essentially the same goddamn thing as "capitalism vs socialism".

And if anyone doesn't see that,  then my only question is what fucking planet are you from?



A better framing would be "Policy based on information and empirical examination that is meant to address a series of assessed outstanding issues" vs "Tax cuts, war, christianity, and ignoring science...regardless of what issues are or aren't present."

Using words like "capitalism" and "socialism" (or any other ism's) is about as useless as it gets in political discussion as it doesn't really mean anything concrete.  Simply state the policy and argue its merits.  Who cares what "ism" an uneducated moron categorizes that policy into.

If we simply state the policies and argue their merits, we will quickly see that one side has absolutely nothing substantive to offer.  If we simply state the policies and argue their merits, we will quickly see one side offering tax incentivized corporate profit sharing programs, infrastructure bills to be offset by closure of tax loopholes for the 1%, subsidized college education, diplomatic solutions meant to slow nuclear proliferation etc., etc.   On the other side, we will see neverending talk of email servers, fabricated videos about planned parenthood, fabricated persecution of christians, etc. etc.

In other words,  one side is always wrong and the other side is always right.  Got it.


No.  That is not what I said.  A broken clock is accurate twice per day.

Let me try again.  One side will assess our current situation and then offer policy meant to address our needs at the time, and that policy will be based on information and empirical investigation.   On the other side, the part about "assessing the current situation" is skipped and the same policy is always adopted.

For example, the republican economic plan is tax cuts and will always be tax cuts.  It doesn't matter if we're in recession, booming economy, exploding deficits, or exploding surplus, the remedy is always tax cuts.   With that said, there are times when tax cuts are a reasonable policy offering.  If we're running a perennial surplus and debt is low, a tax cut is perfectly reasonable.   If there is some economic disturbance that requires a swift response, a tax cut could be easily justified as a valid policy option.  What isn't easily justified is claiming that tax cuts are a miracle policy that should always be pushed for, regardless of our current economic or fiscal climate.

I could say the same about war.  The republican policy, for the last several decades has been to advocate for war.  Someone else is under attack?  War.   We're under attack?  War.  Neither we nor anyone else is under attack?  War.  No matter the situation, republicans will find someone to go to war with.  That said, there are times when war is absolutely necessary.  Should a republican call for war when it is actually necessary, they would be correct in their policy - but for the wrong reason.  Here again, a broken clock is accurate twice per day.

On the other side of the coin, democrats will listen to the world scientific community repeatedly tell us that climate change is happening and that it is very likely that man is driving it, and they will then offer policy ideas that are meant to address that problem.  It's not as if democrats came up with cap and trade purely out of the blue and independent of a scientific assessment of the world climate.  Democrats will see how wealth and income distribution have been grossly skewed over the last 30 years and then offer policy ideas that are tailored to address that.

Republicans will offer ideas to address that as well.  Care to guess what that is?  Tax cuts!

Once republicans realize that they can no longer distort reality about climate change, would you venture to guess what their policy offering will be to remedy that?  Tax cuts!

If you're in the super bowl, it's 4 and 10 and you're backed up to your own end zone, what would a republican suggest you do there?  Tax cuts!

Do you see any contrast in the approach there?


The followers of one side can speak about this sort of stuff as I just have.  The followers of the other side struggle to get out "Bad ideas fail, comrade.  It's like socialist fascism!"


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:Jesus,  I may be as dumb as a rock,  but it looks like my contribution to this thread has now got you liberal/progressive/democrat types saying you love capitalism.  

So if that's dumbness,  then I'm rather proud of my dumbness.  lol

Yes, you've successfully defeated every strawman you've constructed in this thread.

Well done, Bob.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:

Yes, you've successfully defeated every strawman you've constructed in this thread.


Yep it's all just a "strawman" because there is no battle going on between the public and the private in this country. It's all just a lovefest with everybody celebrating both. lol

So I'm gonna throw out another strawman argument, Sal. It's my opinion that the sun rises in the east. What say you? lol



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:

For example, the republican economic plan is tax cuts and will always be tax cuts.  It doesn't matter if we're in recession, booming economy, exploding deficits, or exploding surplus, the remedy is always tax cuts.   With that said, there are times when tax cuts are a reasonable policy offering.

Would that be like this...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/08/trump_seeks_higher_taxes_on_rich_lower_taxes_on_mi.html

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

But this conversation is getting so surreal.

Because you yourself just strengthened my argument and you don't even realize it, bds.

Because,  yes you're correct,  apart from that Trump position,  the divide is "raise taxes" (democrat/liberal/progressive argument) VS
"cut taxes" (the republican/conservative argument).

Generally speaking, raising taxes is equivalent to preferring government solutions.  And cutting taxes is equivalent to preferring private enterprise solutions.
It all gets back to the same fucking thing.  The same battle between capitalism and socialism.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:But this conversation is getting so surreal.

That's bound to happen when debating someone who insists on assigning positions and attributing commentary that we never even remotely held or made.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:So I understand why a certain degree of socialism is needed.

But just like what we see with a government owned and operated health care system (VA),  we also see the same inefficiency with the government owned and operated local bus system.
If you ever take a look at the local bus system,  what you will see is a lot of mostly empty buses.  

So why is this?  Why does,  generally speaking,  private enterprise do a better job of enterprise than government does?
Two simple reasons.

One,  when government does enterprise it does it as a monopoly.  
Private enterprise has to compete.  Competition is what increases productivity and efficiency.

Two,  when government does enterprise,  it does not have to turn a profit to survive.  Many don't like the term "profit motive",  but that's also needed to attain productivity and efficiency.

SO,  to have a successful society,  we need to incorporate both into it.  Not just one or the other.  
At least that's the opinion of a cowardly fence-sitter whose IQ is lower than a toaster.  

What competition does Gulf Power have? What about the cable companies...who have their own designated markets...the alternatives are few. How about water & sewer services? Again...built-in monopoly.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Floridatexan wrote:

What competition does Gulf Power have?  What about the cable companies...who have their own designated markets...the alternatives are few.  How about water & sewer services?  Again...built-in monopoly.    

Yes,  the electric utilities are just like the government model,  monopolies.

And of course the water and sewer utilities are not only monopolies,  they're actually owned and operated by the government.

The cable tv providers are a little different.  Yes,  each of them have a monopoly on their grid,  but they have to compete with satellite and internet and free over-the-air tv providers so it's not exactly the same.

Let me explain something.  Being a dumbass,  I didn't learn what capitalism is from a class at Draft Dodger U or from reading any goddamn book or any other academic means.

I learned just about everything there is to know about capitalism in a different way.
I spent 40 years out in the field of capitalism,   both being subjected to all aspects of it,   and learning how to practice it.

And I can reduce it to it's most fundamental terms.  Which is that with capitalism,  not everyone is equal.  
I had to compete with a whole world full of capitalists out there in the field of capitalism.
And the ones who were better at it than me,  whipped my ass at it.  And the ones who weren't as good at it as I was,  got their asses whipped by me.
I also learned that there are plenty of capitalists out there who don't play fair.  Their only objective is the profit-motive and every other consideration takes a backseat to that.
I lived and breathed all that for 40 years.  That's my education.

The government solution,  on the other hand,  is an entirely different concept.
That one begins with the premise that we all are equal.  That our station in life should not result from competition.  

After having been subjected to both ideas,  my own personal opinion is that there is room for both.



Last edited by Bob on 9/23/2015, 2:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

For example, the republican economic plan is tax cuts and will always be tax cuts.  It doesn't matter if we're in recession, booming economy, exploding deficits, or exploding surplus, the remedy is always tax cuts.   With that said, there are times when tax cuts are a reasonable policy offering.

Would that be like this...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/08/trump_seeks_higher_taxes_on_rich_lower_taxes_on_mi.html




When I say "republican" in my post above, I'm referring to a combination of establishment and tea party republicans. Trump is neither, so he doesn't exactly fit into my explanation. Likewise, there are libertarian leaning republicans - Rand Paul, for example - that do not tow the traditional, establishment party line.

They exist, but they are few and far between.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

It might be helpful to review what we've learned from Bob in this thread ...

On one end of the political spectrum, you have posters who look at policy that could be construed as having "socialistic" aspects, and they respond, "SOCIALIST! ... FASCIST!! ... HITLER!!! ... BENGAHZI!!!!".

The other end of the political spectrum looks at the merits or lack thereof of the policy that could be construed as having "socialistic" aspects, so that means they don't ♥ capitalism enough.

And, Trump said some things with his mouth hole about taxation also too, so that destroys the whole dichotomy anyway.

Bob wins.

Did I cover it all, Bob?

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
You watch waaaay too much cable news.

Well shoot,  Sal,  you just shot down my whole argument.
What I'm describing is ONLY true with "cable news".
It's certainly not true with the posters to this forum.  They all understand the necessity of both capitalism and socialism because the typical post here is in support of both.
Markle loves both.  obamasucks loves both.  bds loves both.  FlaTexan loves both.  wordslinger loves both.  All of you love both.  Not one of you is preaching one or the other.  The typical post here is emphasizing that BOTH socialism and capitalism are equally necessary.
And the politicians of both political parties are preaching a combination of both.  I've never seen a poiltician who likes one and doesn't like the other.  That's unheard of.
And you're right,  only "cable news" likes one or the other but not both.
Just take a look at the alternative media (internet).  Why hell,  all I see are websites and blogs which are preaching that BOTH capitalism and socialism are equally necessary.  I never see any alternative media which is pushing just one or just the other.  Totally unheard of.

So you just destroyed my whole argument,  Sal.  
But only if we've now entered The Twilight Zone.  lol

If you asked Senator Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a "democratic socialist", whether he favors capitalism, I'm sure he would give you a yes answer, followed by a discussion of the need for regulation. Unfettered, unregulated "free" markets don't work for the majority and lead to monopolies and "too big to fail" banks, which were bailed out at taxpayer expense. That's
socialization of losses for the wealthy, and it's basically ANTI-CAPITALIST and ANTI-FREE ENTERPRISE.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:



When I say "republican" in my post above, I'm referring to a combination of establishment and tea party republicans.  Trump is neither, so he doesn't exactly fit into my explanation.  Likewise, there are libertarian leaning republicans - Rand Paul, for example - that do not tow the traditional, establishment party line.  

They exist, but they are few and far between.

I already acknowledged all that with the post I made after the one you're quoting. Try to keep up.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum