Socialist president?

[Death Metal]

I'm not sure where people get this idea that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same. It's completely groundless, and becomes more and more inaccurate by the day.

Both Republicans and Democrats are warmongers. Both support Keynesian economics. Both support the Federal Reserve (except for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich). Both support the bailouts. Both support the Department of Homeland Security. Both support the Patriot Act/NDAA

They agree on all the bad stuff.

Well, bailouts and Keynesian economics work.

Plus, the NDAA 2011 had no new powers. We've been over this. The AUMF 2001 is the thing that's the issue. Not to mention that the part of the NDAA 2011 that got everyone's attention was a Republican rider, and that the bill was otherwise a Constitutionally-mandated budget bill.

Not to mention that Obama has actually decimated the Patriot Act, leaving only the three things in there that actually got useful intelligence. There's no reason to expect them to keep those once Al Qaeda is a non-entity anyway.

[Silent Majority]

I'm not sure where people get this idea that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same. It's completely groundless, and becomes more and more inaccurate by the day.

Both Republicans and Democrats are warmongers. Both support Keynesian economics. Both support the Federal Reserve (except for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich). Both support the bailouts. Both support the Department of Homeland Security. Both support the Patriot Act/NDAA

They agree on all the bad stuff.

There is wide opposition to war within the Democratic party. If the Republicans truly supported Keynesian economics they would not be so quick to propose cuts to government spending, which is one of the few things contributing to aggregate demand. Anyone interested in not seeing tons of american jobs lost, which would have driven the economy into the ground even further, supported the bailouts. There is opposition to DHS on both sides of the isle, and there is strong resentment of the patriot act among democrats.

So no, they are not identical. Try again.

[Der Landstreicher]

I'm not sure where people get this idea that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same. It's completely groundless, and becomes more and more inaccurate by the day.

They are totally different. One is a capitalist system that operates by the principles of FA Hayek, and is constantly bombarded and smeared by biased media.

The other, of course, is the Republican Party.

Wut?

The Libertarian party get no media attention at all, they don't do anything "media worthy."

And the Libertarian party isn't close to Hayek at all, having actually read Hayek I can say he is closer to the Republicans.

[North California]

Both Republicans and Democrats are warmongers. Both support Keynesian economics. Both support the Federal Reserve (except for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich). Both support the bailouts. Both support the Department of Homeland Security. Both support the Patriot Act/NDAA

They agree on all the bad stuff.

There is wide opposition to war within the Democratic party. If the Republicans truly supported Keynesian economics they would not be so quick to propose cuts to government spending, which is one of the few things contributing to aggregate demand. Anyone interested in not seeing tons of american jobs lost, which would have driven the economy into the ground even further, supported the bailouts. There is opposition to DHS on both sides of the isle, and there is strong resentment of the patriot act among democrats.

So no, they are not identical. Try again.

Republicans supporting spending cuts?? Then why do they support having the largest defense budget in the world, as well as the bailouts of the auto companies in 2007, and the bailout of the airline companies a few years before?

Also, the strongest resentment to the Patriot Act is among Libertarians.

[North California]

They are totally different. One is a capitalist system that operates by the principles of FA Hayek, and is constantly bombarded and smeared by biased media.

The other, of course, is the Republican Party.

Wut?

The Libertarian party get no media attention at all, they don't do anything "media worthy."

And the Libertarian party isn't close to Hayek at all, having actually read Hayek I can say he is closer to the Republicans.

Hayek isn't even a true laissez-faire supporter.

[Death Metal]

They are totally different. One is a capitalist system that operates by the principles of FA Hayek, and is constantly bombarded and smeared by biased media.

The other, of course, is the Republican Party.

Wut?

The Libertarian party get no media attention at all, they don't do anything "media worthy."

And the Libertarian party isn't close to Hayek at all, having actually read Hayek I can say he is closer to the Republicans.

The first was the Democratic party....

[North California]

There is wide opposition to war within the Democratic party. If the Republicans truly supported Keynesian economics they would not be so quick to propose cuts to government spending, which is one of the few things contributing to aggregate demand. Anyone interested in not seeing tons of american jobs lost, which would have driven the economy into the ground even further, supported the bailouts. There is opposition to DHS on both sides of the isle, and there is strong resentment of the patriot act among democrats.

So no, they are not identical. Try again.

Republicans supporting spending cuts?? Then why do they support having the largest defense budget in the world, as well as the bailouts of the auto companies in 2007, and the bailout of the airline companies a few years before?

Also, the strongest resentment to the Patriot Act is among Libertarians. Also, why should the tax payers suffer because of a few incompetent CEO's?

[North California]

Wut?

The Libertarian party get no media attention at all, they don't do anything "media worthy."

And the Libertarian party isn't close to Hayek at all, having actually read Hayek I can say he is closer to the Republicans.

The first was the Democratic party....

I don't think you read my edit to your post...

[Death Metal]

as well as the bailouts of the auto companies in 2007

2009: Now 2007.

[Der Landstreicher]

Wut?

The Libertarian party get no media attention at all, they don't do anything "media worthy."

And the Libertarian party isn't close to Hayek at all, having actually read Hayek I can say he is closer to the Republicans.

Hayek isn't even a true laissez-faire supporter.

That's because Hayek never supported "laissez-faire" he was strictly for regulations and the such but he was strictly against new regulations, barriers, etc.

[North California]

as well as the bailouts of the auto companies in 2007

2009: Now 2007.

Remember, Bush bailed out GM???

[Silent Majority]

There is wide opposition to war within the Democratic party. If the Republicans truly supported Keynesian economics they would not be so quick to propose cuts to government spending, which is one of the few things contributing to aggregate demand. Anyone interested in not seeing tons of american jobs lost, which would have driven the economy into the ground even further, supported the bailouts. There is opposition to DHS on both sides of the isle, and there is strong resentment of the patriot act among democrats.

So no, they are not identical. Try again.

Republicans supporting spending cuts?? Then why do they support having the largest defense budget in the world, as well as the bailouts of the auto companies in 2007, and the bailout of the airline companies a few years before?

A fair criticism. But they do support cutting virtually everything else.

Also, the strongest resentment to the Patriot Act is among Libertarians.

Good for them. They are not the only ones who oppose it however.


Not that it is especially important, If I recall correctly the Patriot act has mostly been gutted.

[Death Metal]

That's because Hayek never supported "laissez-faire" he was strictly for regulations and the such but he was strictly against new regulations, barriers, etc.

o rly

The question whether the state should or should not "act" or "interfere" poses an altogether false alternative, and the term "laissez faire" is a highly ambiguous and misleading description of the principles on which a liberal policy is based. Of course, every state must act and every action of the state interferes with something or other. [...] The state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud and deception in any other way) is certainly acting, while the state permitting the use of violence, for example by strike pickets, is inactive. Yet it is in the first case that the state observes liberal principles and in the second that it does not.
Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" pp 80-81 U of Chicago Press 1972

[Death Metal]

2009: Now 2007.

Remember, Bush bailed out GM???

Bush didn't even acknowledge the economy was bad until his lame duck period.

[North California]

That's because Hayek never supported "laissez-faire" he was strictly for regulations and the such but he was strictly against new regulations, barriers, etc.

o rly

The question whether the state should or should not "act" or "interfere" poses an altogether false alternative, and the term "laissez faire" is a highly ambiguous and misleading description of the principles on which a liberal policy is based. Of course, every state must act and every action of the state interferes with something or other. [...] The state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud and deception in any other way) is certainly acting, while the state permitting the use of violence, for example by strike pickets, is inactive. Yet it is in the first case that the state observes liberal principles and in the second that it does not.
Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" pp 80-81 U of Chicago Press 1972

Didn't you send me a telegram saying that Hayek would have supported the bailouts?

[Der Landstreicher]

That's because Hayek never supported "laissez-faire" he was strictly for regulations and the such but he was strictly against new regulations, barriers, etc.

o rly

The question whether the state should or should not "act" or "interfere" poses an altogether false alternative, and the term "laissez faire" is a highly ambiguous and misleading description of the principles on which a liberal policy is based. Of course, every state must act and every action of the state interferes with something or other. [...] The state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud and deception in any other way) is certainly acting, while the state permitting the use of violence, for example by strike pickets, is inactive. Yet it is in the first case that the state observes liberal principles and in the second that it does not.
Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" pp 80-81 U of Chicago Press 1972

Ya really.

[Death Metal]

o rly

Didn't you send me a telegram saying that Hayek would have supported the bailouts?

Using the exact same quote, yes. Though that has nothing to do with me saying that Hayek actually was for new regulations...

[Milks Empire]

Democrats and Republicans really aren't as different as they want you to think they are.

[Artanili Datium]

With a certain 1950's US Statesman and his views still impacting America and a society where the two largest Parties are Centrist and Moderate Right, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[Milks Empire]

With a certain 1950's US Statesman and his views still impacting America and a society where the two largest Parties are Centristnominally center-right (that's the Democrats) and Moderate Rightexplicitly far-right (that's the Republicans), I don't see it happening any time soon.

Fixed.

[Artanili Datium]

With a certain 1950's US Statesman and his views still impacting America and a society where the two largest Parties are Centristnominally center-right (that's the Democrats) and Moderate Rightexplicitly far-right (that's the Republicans), I don't see it happening any time soon.

Fixed.

TBH, they are fudging the line between Centre-Right and Centrist.

[Ordo Drakul]

We have one

No we don't.

Obama is a Socialist in the same way that the Dalai Lama is the leader of the Catholic Church.

Let's see-Obama overturned 150 years of US bankruptcy law to see to it personally the UAW ended up with control of GM/Chrysler, but that isn't in any way, shape, or form "putting the means of production in the hands of the workers". The problem with socialists is they're either too stupid to know the truth when it's fed to them in an IV, or too evil to offer more than a partial truth if they should be able to identify one.

[Demphor]

Um... Yeah, of course there will be Socialism in the US.

SOCIALIST PARTY 2056!

[Cameroi]

i've probably already said this, but in case i haven't, many many places have elected presidents and other high officials who have been called socialist, or ran on the tickets of self proclaimed socialist parties, and their countries have not collapsed, or gone marxist, become less democratic or any of that. a few may have, but many many, most others, have not. a president does not make the law. some other sort of council, usuallly in some sense representational does. even a king who has absolute power in principal, must respect the loyalty and demands of everyone he or she depends on to remain in power.

so in any normal country with a free and fair election, that elects a socialist president, he or she, is just another president, the world doesn't colapse or end, the country doesn't fall into caos or become dictatorial, it just becomes a country that may have a little more care for its real people who live there, make a few fewer concessions to those interests who put economics ahead of people, and so on.

it is unlikely, as history has established and shown, that any major structural change will take place in a country that elects a socialist president, just because they do so.

people who say the sky would fall if a socialist president were elected, are really just hiding that they have nothing positive to offer instead.

[Blakk Metal]

Republicans and Democrats already advocate for big government statists, so why not a socialist?

Because socialism is inherently hostile to the state, since the state is an institution of class dictatorship.

Only some forms.