Being on the ballot and being able to implement their agenda are not the same thing. Prohibition parties are also on the ballot, but it’s recognized that they’d need to get an amendment passed to resume prohibition. Well, not really, our thinking on the Constitution has “evolved” since then, but you get the idea.
Part of “not being even wrong” is here, that is communism, you have no idea what socialism is.
Yeah, this situation indeed calls to not be simplistic, in less simplistic terms, you are not just wrong, you are not even wrong.
Then why are those programs so often described as socialism by your party?
There are plenty of counties in the US that are dry by statute. No amendment needed.
At least before the modern interpretation of the commerce clause, you did need an amendment for a national ban, however.
And you’d still need an amendment to nationalize industries.
No, you are in a different planet as the examples of policies and agendas that are socialist in nature and still present show. Ideas like social security. (That it has not been declared unconstitutional after more than 60 years)
Of course this is proof of the hypocrisy of many Republicans when they accuse many democrats of being socialists, this only leads to very dumb contradictions, the agenda the democrats have passed in the past is based on social justice agendas that many capitalist nations even use today. To me all this is just semantics, the bottom line is that you are really clueless on what socialism is, and it is not prohibited by the constitution.
But you can’t outlaw private competition, an essential component to socialism.
You didn’t say anything about outlawing. And where do you get the idea that this is in the works?
Sure you can. Look at Major League Baseball - they have an anti-trust exemption.
When Obama took office, lots of things became socialism. Raising the top marginal income tax rate by 4.6%? Socialism! Maintaining our national infrastructure? Socialism! Of course it’s popular.
Yep, adaher, I do now that you do think that looking at sources like FOX or other right wing media is a good idea, but in reality what you get is just disinformation in a neat looking package. When I tell someone that he or she is getting “burned” is the result of others realizing that the poster has no clue. This is the result of repeating platitudes that clearly were propaganda with no facts supporting it.
No wonder the Republicans lost the Presidential election.
On edit:
You really are digging deeper uh?
The reality is that it is you who is simplifying your terminology so much that they show to be inept when there are so many exceptions to your peculiar definitions.
That is to say, you can’t run a society like a DI runs his recruit-platoon. “Hate underachievers”?! :dubious: No one has a duty to achieve, and everyone has a perfect right to be an underachiever. Achievement has absolutely no relevance to what society owes the individual or vice-versa.
Sure, if you don’t take taxpayer money to do it.
Anyway, remember how I was talking about the possible rifts between limousine liberals and minority voters? Well in California, a working class Republican successfully ran against the elite liberals who don’t care about the bread and butter issues affecting this mostly Hispanic district.
And yes, I know it’s Breitbart, but their analysis is spot on:
On a more local level, Vidak’s theme of “fish versus farmer” resonated with Democrats in a District where the unemployment rate is 15% and as high as 30% in some communities in the District. Vidak reminded voters that liberal environmentalists, in order to protect fish, only allowed farmers to receive 20% of their water allocation, crippling the region’s economy.\
if Democrats are going to keep minority voters, they are going to have to demphasize the environment when it conflicts with jobs. Either that, or wait until they’ll be forced to.
One thing I remember as I was from the area, central California is conservative, I have to wonder where Breitbart came with the idea this is representative of other regions, also I do have to doubt the numbers they come with.
As for choosing environment vs. jobs, that only shows to me a very rotten false dilemma, while it seems to be a successful ploy in that election, it does remain a very unethical maneuver. Many new jobs are coming from supporting the environment, and in the long run, not doing any preparations for the changes coming as many Republicans propose only will translate into less jobs for future generations.
In any case, even with this defeat California is still under democratic control, with super majority support in their congress.
It’s not a false dilemma. Unless you live in free lunch land, where there are never any disagreements among interest groups in your coalition, and no conflicts between goals, and no tradeoffs.
And I can’t believe you made the “green jobs” argument. So far there haven’t been enough green jobs created to even begin to make up for all the jobs denied Americans because of the Democratic war on coal miners, frackers, and oil drillers.
As compared to all the jobs that have gone overseas or just vanished in the quest for ever higher profits.
As for your underachievers not taking tax money, what about these?
As usual that only works by denying that there is a problem and that scientists continue to report that mitigation alone will not be enough and will get us jobs alright, but not the ones for useful progress, think more as making walls and desperate and very expensive geo-engineering solutions.
As I pointed before, you are only looking at current conditions with no thought whatsoever to the changes ahead, I only would think that it would be better and cheaper to help deploy more new technology that will benefit all, the jobs that one would look for then would be more on the sustainable front and less on the disaster one.
So, you really do sound like the people that in the past opposed the eventual creations of jobs like plumber when cities finally worked to control the clean and dirty water, so why do you hate Joe the Plumber? 
Taken to the current times, one could say why do you hate guys that would still be conservative in a world that has decided to create new industries to manage the problem now rather than dealing with the worse scenarios as a result of doing next to nothing as the current crop of republicans tell you?
What the heck, adaher? This is utterly a false dilemma. From here:
If you don’t already know, IBD is solidly on your team. They’re even worse that Fox when it comes to right-wing slant, and even they cannot deny the surging success of the solar industry right now.
But that is corporate stock performance/profit and not jobs for regular folks? Wrong. From here:
That’s from Treehugger.com- a site I’d never heard of before but which came up on a search for a stat I’m already aware of. But look at the success of this industry in what is still a limited geographical area.
That’s just one example. What you need to realize is that the GOP, to a large extent, represents the oil and gas industry and not the people of this country. This causes them to promote a distorted message, which you seem to swallow hook, line and sinker.
The only war wrt to oil, coal and gas is them vs. people’s health and well-being. Which GOP faction wants to destroy the EPA? It isn’t the racists or evangelicals, it is the fossil fuel lobby. Making fossil fuels more competitive by allowing them to poison people is a foolish cause at best.
Long story short- “war on coal” is a canard that actually promotes anti-competition in a case where competition isn’t going the way your faction would prefer.