The Real timschochet

If that was the reason it would certainly be a stupid one, since (a) undocumented immigrants can’t vote (b) Latinos who CAN vote are trending more and more conservative. You don’t need to look for ulterior motives beyond the reasons I gave already. I believe that being pro-immigration, including undocumented immigration, is a fundamental aspect of Americanism.

1. Liberals for the most part continue to support the global order since 1945 and the continued commitment and responsibilities of the USA as leader of the Free World with all that entails: 2. Free trade being the most important element of capitalism by far, liberals currently find themselves in the odd historical position of being more capitalist than most conservatives. 3. Liberals believe that most scientists are right about man made climate change, its urgency to our future survival, and that steps need to be taken to address it. 4. Liberals believe that most immigration, including undocumented immigration, is a positive good for this country, a fundamental aspect of what makes this nation great. There are many other reasons but these for me are the four biggest.

The Democrats who answered no are misguided idiots. Full stop.

Well I would argue that even they can’t do it. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in one.

Just thought of one: Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. So MAYBE them.

I have already explained to you the differences. Several times now. I won’t comment further on your views on taxation except to point out that if you have voted for any of the major candidates for political office in your lifetime then you have voted for someone who supports taxation forced by law.

No they’re not socialist. Their leaders in each case tried to implement socialist ideas. Some have lasted particularly in Western Europe (universal health care and old age benefits for example.) Others have been reversed over time. The point is none of them became Communist. Actually thinking about this a little more I would be hard put to find ANY Conmunist countries that arose out of Socialism. All the ones I can think of came to power through bloody revolution (Soviet Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, several counties in Africa) or military occupation (eastern Europe after 1945.) There may be examples I’m not considering.

Israel also provides an excellent example of a smaller communal society that is socialist but not communist; the kibbutz. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

1. So taxation isn’t democratic? That’s a pretty extreme view. Even in a completely libertarian society there has to be a government to protect the rights of the individual no? Who pays for it if not through taxation (voting to take someone else’s stuff?) 2. I have no idea what you’re getting at here. What do my personal views on deportation, or for that matter any other issue, have to do with the key differences between Communism and Democratic Socialism?

First off what would Lenin know about it? When he died in 2021, there had never been a socialist government in power other than Kerensky in 1917 and that was overthrown by Lenin. Here, off the top of my head, are a list of socialist governments that did NOT become Communist: Britain in 1924 under Ramsey McDonald Britain in 1945 under Clement Atlee West Germany in 1951 under Konrad Adenauer* Sweden in 1982 under Olaf Palme (* Adenauer was not a socialist, he was a “Christian Democrat”, but the government he ran was dominated by the German Social Democratic Party, the historical equivalent of today’s Democratic Socialists.) Thats an extremely incomplete list. Many people regard India’s first government in 1950 under Nehru as socialist. Two of the the first three prime ministers of Israel, David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meier, were also socialist (Labor Zionist). it’s also important to note, as a further refutation of your overall point, that many of these same people were strongly anti-Communist, and played significant roles in helping us win the Cold War. HTH.

Oh it’s sinking in. The people don’t want this piece of sh!t bill and they’re going to punish those who pushed it through.

Look you guys want to argue that Democrats are too woke, too progressive, now with the new mayor of NYC they’re Communist, etc, etc. None of it matters. The Democrats are going to run next year on two issues: the big beautiful bill and tariffs. And they’re going to win big, because that’s all that’s going to matter to people.

A primer: https://time.com/5422714/what-is-democratic-socialism/

Every sentence here is wrong, and the opposite of the truth. I don’t think YOU know anything about history or you would have never written this.

This entire controversy is almost entirely because Trump exaggerates and then insists that everyone takes his exaggeration seriously. If he had simply said “we think we got most of it; we certainly set them back for several years I hope” I doubt anyone would be up in arms.

Pretty much. This is why when all the Dems were pulling their hair out worrying about why they lost and what new message they need to bring, whether they should go more progressive or more centrist, I wrote not to worry about it. Because in truth the Dems don’t need to do a thing but watch and be the alternative to this disaster.

The politics only matter if this was a political crime which I strongly doubt.

The rules have been released: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/15/politics/trump-biden-cnn-debate-rules 90 minutes with 2 commercial breaks. Neither guy is allowed to consult anyone during the breaks. No audience. No sound on mics when the other guy is talking. So there will be no interrupting allowed. This seems as fair as it can be. Right now there are a ton of accusations about old age and mental disfunction: both men have been accused of not being mentally with it, etc. This debate should give us the answers to those accusations once and for all.

FTR: 1. Communism is a great evil, arguably the greatest evil, arguably worse than Nazism, certainly on a par with the worst that human society has ever produced. You don’t have to ever worry about me endorsing Communism. 2. Mamdani is not a Communist. He is a Democratic Socialist. He would never support a dictatorship. Think Sweden during most of the last 60 years, not Soviet Russia. Democratic Socialists have a lot of bad ideas IMO, I have already discussed some of these here.in general they put too much faith in the power of government to rectify societal problems, But they are not evil. And many of their ideas, particularly in non- economic areas, I share. That’s what I meant when I wrote that Mamdani seemed reasonable (and likeable as well.)

Most Americans have no idea this bill is about to be passed. The ones that do hate it in large numbers. Between this and the tarrifs Republicans are going to get blown out next year.

Multiple shooters?

Couer D’Alane- that’s where my parents stayed years ago when they attended a Washington State football game. So it must be right on the border…I remember my dad saying it had one of the most gorgeous golf courses he had ever seen. This is so sad.

So Mamdami was on Meet the Press this morning, and seemed quite reasonable. But he ended on a sour note for me when he refused to condemn the phrase “global intifada.” His argument was that, while it was a phrase he doesn’t like, it’s not his job to condemn speech. This is disingenuous. I truly doubt that if Mamdami was confronted with a bigot using the “N” word he would have any trouble condemning it. And this is where leftists fall apart: all too many of them lack moral clarity. What is wrong with saying “Look, I am deeply sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and strongly critical of Israel, but violence and intifada are not reasonable alternatives. I reject intifada, global or otherwise, and condemn it. I want peaceful just solutions.” ??? That seems easy enough, right? But this guy can’t say that, I guess for fear of upsetting somebody? And that’s sad. But don’t pretend this is about protecting speech. Because that’s bullsh!t.

Not everyone needs the operation like you do. (But as a progressive I want you to know that I fully support your desire to have one, either way. And I support however you would like to be called afterwards as well.)

That has nothing to do with anything I asserted. Also it seems unlikely but I don’t really care. When you brag about your wealth on the internet it doesn’t make you impressive if that’s your goal. It just makes you look like an a$$hole (and of your comment is true a stupid a$$hole too.)