Definitions - "Socialism" (Page 2): Why can't you give your own definition? :sm06: That's one of the things that fuels the debate, people can debate it or not, their choice. :sm17:...

Morgan

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

The hardest part of my Definition posts is not Giving my own definition and engaging...

It's a rule that I work hatd to uphold...

How else can I learn ?

Why can't you give your own definition?

That's one of the things that fuels the debate, people can debate it or not, their choice.

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

Weasel wrote:

Better Yet, who here at OPP will be v****g Democrat In our next E******ns?
That says it all.

It's not who will be v****g Democrat here at OPP. But why? Myself I v**e for the best person . But I know one thing for sure I WON'T BE V****G FOR TRUMP as he has proven in my opinion to be the worst POTUS ever. IF someone runs against him I would v**e for that person. There are many fine GOP to run against Trump and would do a much better job. Sad day when the GOP turned into "TRUMPS WORLD"

Hug

We should know the enemy, so teachers should teach about what the various forms of governments are, but teachers should always teach American values.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Morgan wrote:

Why can't you give your own definition?

That's one of the things that fuels the debate, people can debate it or not, their choice.

It's a rule I created when I first started posting my weekly Definitions post...

Otherwise I would get drawn into defending my views, rather than learning what others think....

I can ask questions...
And I try to offer encouragment to all...
But true debaye needs to start from understanding the other person's perspective..

How many times have you been in a debate and realized that your opponent(s) had a different understanding of the issue being debated?

My Definition posts aren't always successful... Two weeks ago it bombed completely...
But most of them have given me a greater understanding of how other people think...

And all have given me pause for thought on my own definitions

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

jimpack123 wrote:

It's not who will be v****g Democrat here at OPP. But why? Myself I v**e for the best person . But I know one thing for sure I WON'T BE V****G FOR TRUMP as he has proven in my opinion to be the worst POTUS ever. IF someone runs against him I would v**e for that person. There are many fine GOP to run against Trump and would do a much better job. Sad day when the GOP turned into "TRUMPS WORLD"

Interesting...
What if the other candidates should fail to prove superior to Trump? (in your opinion)

Would you v**e for them out of spite?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Hug wrote:

We should know the enemy, so teachers should teach about what the various forms of governments are, but teachers should always teach American values.

Good point...
By 'American values' do you mean civics?

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Interesting...
What if the other candidates should fail to prove superior to Trump? (in your opinion)

Would you v**e for them out of spite?

No but Trump has had two years and so far proven me right that he is not the right man for the Job He could have got his wall money when the GOP had control of both the house and the Senate. But he didn't want that. What Trump wants is turmoil and hatred . I always belief that a person should do the best job that they can. by following the rules of our land. Don't sidestep the rules or laws when it doesn't fit your wants. I believe that most of us were raised this way

Morgan

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

It's a rule I created when I first started posting... (show quote)

Ok, I see that.

Here is one definition of the difference between democratic socialism and traditional Marxist socialism.
{The key difference between socialism and democratic socialists is that democratic socialists don't want the government to own the means of production and socialists do. They believe that certain general social goods like health care should be run by the government, but otherwise, support capitalism.}

Let me also mention this is run by the people, in a democratic form (which can be a representative democracy / federal republic) and not a form of dictatorship. Big difference.

Rose42

Morgan wrote:

Right there is the problem, you go by party and not to the credits of the person. Only Trump followers know who they are v****g for and what party, the rest of us on the side of reason waits to see all who are running.

Uh, I would say that is incorrect. I didn't v**e for Trump but I saw no reasoning ability for those who v**ed for Clinton. For many who v**ed for Trump it was more an anti-Clinton than a pro-Trump v**e. In the absence of good candidates that's what happens.

These days most people are sheep. They are under the illusion that they are in control.

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

Rose42 wrote:

Uh, I would say that is incorrect. I didn't v**e for Trump but I saw no reasoning ability for those who v**ed for Clinton. For many who v**ed for Trump it was more an anti-Clinton than a pro-Trump v**e. In the absence of good candidates that's what happens.

These days most people are sheep. They are under the illusion that they are in control.

amen lol

Morgan

Rose42 wrote:

Uh, I would say that is incorrect. I didn't v**e for Trump but I saw no reasoning ability for those who v**ed for Clinton. For many who v**ed for Trump it was more an anti-Clinton than a pro-Trump v**e. In the absence of good candidates that's what happens.

These days most people are sheep. They are under the illusion that they are in control.

Yes, I understand that very well, just as many v**ed for Clinton to be against Trump. The key remedy here would be to get good choices from either side to be campaigning to begin with. I must give credit to the Republicans for having choices, a wide se******n, versus the Dems just stuck with no choice, just Clinton.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Morgan wrote:

Yes, I understand that very well, just as many v**ed for Clinton to be against Trump. The key remedy here would be to get good choices from either side to be campaigning to begin with.

Good points from both of you...(am including Rose42 in this reply..)

Do either of you think that introducing additional parties would improve the situation? (Canada has five

)

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

Morgan wrote:

Ok, I see that. img src="https://static.onepoliti... (show quote)

I believe that the US is heading more towards a democratic socialism type of Govt. You will see a hybrid form of Medicare for all With big companies still be able to offer insurance as a form as phase in to full Medicare for all. That way it will be less painful to implement My guess it will start with the option to join Medicare at 50 yrs then 45 yrs and eventually being fully implemented just my guess

Rose42

Morgan wrote:

Yes, I understand that very well, just as many v**ed for Clinton to be against Trump. The key remedy here would be to get good choices from either side to be campaigning to begin with. I must give credit to the Republicans for having choices, a wide se******n, versus the Dems just stuck with no choice, just Clinton.

I'm not a democrat but I'd like to see them with a strong candidate - a good leader. I want to see the same from republicans. I'd like someone other than Trump. What I'd really like is for more people to v**e third party (if there's a decent candidate) to shake things up. We are at our best when both parties are at their best. IMO

Rose42

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Good points from both of you...(am including Rose42 in this reply..)

Do either of you think that introducing additional parties would improve the situation? (Canada has five

)

I think a third party would make the other two more honest. Democrats and republicans do very little anymore but snipe at each other and try to cancel each other out. I'd go further and say term limits for all politicians. The longer they're in the more they're in it for themselves and forget they work for us.

IMO