@PappyJoe You might be right, but my personal opinion is that the dems know they screwed up with that ticket and want Harris no more than they want Biden. She is someone that couldn't even pull 1% in her own democratic primaries--she was only put in that position because of her gender and race. The last thing they want is for her to run for office and if Biden is impeached, she would be their default candidate...and they don't want that at all.
I was taught that there are two different economies, capitalist and socialist, and, two ruling types, democratic and authoritarian. In practice few of the combinations are pure but rather blends. The U. K. encompasses all four, monarchy, parliment, free market, and social programs. North Korea and China authoritarian and socialist otherwise termed communist.
Well, in all my training as a develop economist, I know of three types of economic structures--mixed economic systems, command economic systems, and laissez-faire economies (sometimes called "traditional")...the latter of which doesn't exist in today's world in any meaningful way (however, see my discussion of capitalism at the end of this post).
On the economic system spectrum we would have
Most extreme: Command (socialist/communist) In the middle: Mixed (most countries of the world) At the other extreme: Laissez-Faire (doesn't exist in proper form although capitalism would fall under this label)
Command economies come in two forms--socialist and communist. The only difference between the two is in the former, quasi-private firms produce goods and services determined by a central planning board and sell them at prices determined by the board whereas in the latter, it is mostly government entities that produce those goods and services. In fact, when I teach economic systems to students, I call socialism "communism lite" as in most cases, socialism turns into communism or the structure falls apart altogether over time (usually because of civil strife).
Mixed economies (sometimes loosely called 'market economies' in the modern sense) vary by degree of government "interference" so you can think of there being a 'spectrum' of mixing. The United States would be considered less regulated and therefore more on the laissez-faire end of the market economy spectrum (i.e., less regulated and therefore less "mixed") whereas the EU would reside more toward the command economy end of the spectrum (more regulated and therefore more "mixed").
As for capitalism proper, it really doesn't exist in the developed or emerging world, but does in the developing world. Capitalism is basically a laissez-faire structure but with property rights and a legal system to enforce those rights--laissez-faire proper does not have these luxuries. However, this system is often politically chaotic simply because it allows for substantial wealth creation and large income disparities that often result in civil unrest, and the legal system is often controlled by the wealthy which causes it's own problems (e.g., some African countries). Does the U.S. have some capitalist characteristics? Yes, and by the previous paragraph, so do EU countries, but that doesn't mean they are capitalist nations, hence the name "mixed" market economies.
I think you are confusing political structure with economic structure; yes, one can indeed influence the other, however, it's not necessary that they do. For instance, you can have a communist political structure that embraces market economy principles--for example, Vietnam is considered a socialist-leaning mixed economy, at least since the mid 80's, but embraces a communist political culture.
On another note, I just made a donation to the Freedom Convoy Truckers via ( Give Send Go ) which unlike the left wing Gofundme doesn't steal from causes it doesn't like.
If any of you are interested here is a link to their Give Send Go page.
I hope you all are following this guy (I've posted about him before). This is why I get upset when in "discussions" with democrats (mostly white) who have never been on the streets. Back when I was running the streets in Virginia Beach and Norfolk, VA, all the girls I knew simply carried butterfly knives, now they're carrying guns. All these democrat cities give fish to these people instead of teaching them how to fish and it really pisses me off--it's like they are completely oblivious to what is happening on the ground. And the appearance of being "racist" prevents these people from addressing the true issues. As the saying goes, if you can't admit you're an alcoholic, you'll never be able to beat alcoholism, and the same applies to the streets--if you can't admit that shit's f--cked up and say exactly what is f--cked up, you'll never be able to fix it.
@mapletop I couldn't have described what's wrong with the whole "it takes a village" attitude any better than he did...it makes people "weak", useless, blameless, etc....and all while smoking a Grabow Grand Duke bent billiard--AND he's from California! Maybe they are coming to their senses out there? Probably not 🤣
@PappyJoe Well, it is a rusticated Dr. Graybow, and he must do it pretty carefully, the rim did not look crispy fried, looked like lava…I guess it could have been scorched underneath. The pipe seemed to have a big ole scorch on the bottom outside of the bowl though…..headed for a burnout?
@vtgrad2003 Please provide the proper definition, it must have changed over the last 40 years. BTW interesting excuses, they must be learning from their children!
The definition we always employed at Chapel Hill in my political philosophy courses (12 credit hours worth) was a group of individuals (in this case democrats) using whatever means available to actively suppress the equal and inalienable rights of other group(s) opposed to it. You combine that with the definition of hypocrisy and there you have my post earlier.
@thebadgerpiper LOL, I know! Giving out free crack pipes with tax payer money! How incredibly stupid is that--only a democrat could up with something like that! Coming from someone who was a major drug dealer and also freebased a ton of cocaine, trust me, giving away free crack pipes will do absolutely nothing but exacerbate and/or prolong someone's drug problem.
@vtgrad2003 So that would include a VP asked to nullify electoral votes, supporters storming the capital, attempts to seize voting machines, frivolous law suits, gerrymandering, and stupid excuses.
1. Asking a VP to nullify electoral votes based upon investigations into voter fraud I would not consider fascism 2. The riot that occurred at the capital is like any other riot (BLM, Antifa, Women's March, etc)...and guess what, they all voluntarily left the capital as well--and primarily because they did leave means it couldn't have been "suppression of opposition" 3. Attempts to seize voting machines--again, "attempts"...key word in my definition was "actively" 4. Do law suits suppress rights? If you think they do then you obviously don't believe in laws and/or the court system 5. Gerrymandering is a really cool word, lol...that said, it's only called Gerrymandering when conservatives do it, not when democrats do it 6. Stupid excuses...I guess the only come back I have with that would be a stupid one 🤣
1. Mike Pence was asked to act by power that didn't exist. In a recent speech he made his position clear, "Trump was wrong"
2. Why stay after your objective has left?
3. Attempted burglary is not a crime since it wasn't successful? If they were able to succeed would it then fit "actively."
4. The law suits were rejected for lack of merit thus the court disallowed the suppression of rights. Does a gag order suppress freedom of speech?
5. Examples? I believe the Court recently rejected redistricting in a Republican controlled state ordering it to redraw it's districts.
6. You're a teacher, you've heard every stupid excuse! Like me reading that article I'd bet you laugh and move on.
Merriam Webster's definition of fascism seems a bit more rigorous
Definition of fascism
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
That's why I like you, you can hold your own in a debate...I don't agree with a thing you just said of course, lol, but you hold your own for sure. We'll once again have to agree to disagree.
PS: Merriam Webster's definition isn't rigorous, it has been rewritten for the modern times. For instance, Mussolini was a fascist for sure, but didn't have support of the people for the most part--i.e., he wasn't a 'nationalist' so to speak...that's why he was strung up in the public square in Milan. The modern definition of fascism was modified specifically to address Trump's rise to power--hence the words "exalts nation"
My grandfather was born in Italy, came to the US around 1915. He became a citizen, married and raised 5 children. When Mussolini came to power and we went to war he tried to sign up for boot camp but was rejected because of his age! I don't believe the definition of fascism was changed because of Trump, but that it does fit him may reflect his respect for his father's politics. Online dictionaries should date the entries they display after all print versions have a publication date!
BTW you should have heard the conversation, ok debate, between me and one of Sanders canvassers, you would have welcomed me to the John Birch Society!
WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell disagreed Tuesday with the Republican National Committee’s recent censure of two GOP lawmakers, as well as its characterization of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
“We all were here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next. That’s what it was,” McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters at his weekly news conference.
Well, a lot of us don't consider it a "violent insurrection" and certainly not a threat to democracy. They weren't armed, the violence was limited and so was the looting. BLM causes far more damage than they did. But McConnell also has to walk a fine line between his legitimacy as republican senate leader and that, many times, causes him to word things in ways that split hairs.
I agree, it shouldn't have happened, but you should also remember what happened from your people when Trump was elected...do you remember any of this? And this is from USA Today and ABC News...not known for their conservative views for sure. I especially like the quote from this article "About 4,000 protesters assembled downtown late Thursday chanting “we reject the president-elect!” the Associated Press reported." And I love how these articles talk about "mostly peaceful protests" then go on to list all the damage and arrests that occurred, LOL.
Whether you are at the capital or causing havoc in a major metropolitan center...causing damage to property while "protesting" is simply wrong, but, everyone is free to reject their elected leaders...it's called freedom of speech, and none of that is fascist.
@vtgrad2003 I don't condone violence in the streets and that goes back to the Watts riots. However smashing windows at the Capitol to gain entry and unauthorized entry into legislators offices is beyond peaceful protests agitated into violence. Even your most staunch Republicans ran from the mob. Look at the event for what it was rather than trying to find comparisons.
@Balisong Exactly, a lot of people got excited, trespassed, took a few dumps on Nancy Pelosi's desk, and left...that's exactly what it was. But as I've stated many times before on this forum, democrats never want to look in the mirror because they won't like what they see (e.g., the riots I posted). As the old saying goes, if you want to see real hate, disagree with a democrat.
It seems to me that there were a few (a relative term considering the US population) batshit crazy far, far, right people that took things too far, probably because they are starving for some sort of national attention. Well, they got it. Problem is, I believe that most of the people there got caught up in the “mob mentality” and regret what happened and their participation. They were just plain stupid with excitement. Some more than others, and not just because they were “caught”. Now, do I believe Biden won illegitimately, no. I do believe that mail-in ballots are wrong except for special cases, deployed military, overseas civilians, medically incapacitated, and such. It would just be too easy to “cheat” that system (I’m not saying that happened). My boss received four separate US ballots in the mail all in his name. How does that happen? Who knows if they would have caught any “extras” had they been sent in? How tough is it to get and use a valid I.D. to vote. People that don’t have I.D.’s probably choose not to because they are trying to “skirt” something, such as jury duty, the law, taxes, child support…whatever. No valid United States citizen, no vote. Too lazy to get out of bed or off of the couch and change out of your pajamas, sweats, or stretch pants to vote, guess you don’t vote. This country wasn’t built by people sitting around on their duff. Oh, felons don’t get to vote either, until they have served their time owed to society deemed by a court of law.
Comments
You might be right, but my personal opinion is that the dems know they screwed up with that ticket and want Harris no more than they want Biden. She is someone that couldn't even pull 1% in her own democratic primaries--she was only put in that position because of her gender and race. The last thing they want is for her to run for office and if Biden is impeached, she would be their default candidate...and they don't want that at all.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-secrets/biden-in-worst-president-ever-territory
Not in economics, they aren't; one is simply a different form of the other...both are considered "command economies"
Well, in all my training as a develop economist, I know of three types of economic structures--mixed economic systems, command economic systems, and laissez-faire economies (sometimes called "traditional")...the latter of which doesn't exist in today's world in any meaningful way (however, see my discussion of capitalism at the end of this post).
On the economic system spectrum we would have
Most extreme: Command (socialist/communist)
In the middle: Mixed (most countries of the world)
At the other extreme: Laissez-Faire (doesn't exist in proper form although capitalism would fall under this label)
Command economies come in two forms--socialist and communist. The only difference between the two is in the former, quasi-private firms produce goods and services determined by a central planning board and sell them at prices determined by the board whereas in the latter, it is mostly government entities that produce those goods and services. In fact, when I teach economic systems to students, I call socialism "communism lite" as in most cases, socialism turns into communism or the structure falls apart altogether over time (usually because of civil strife).
Mixed economies (sometimes loosely called 'market economies' in the modern sense) vary by degree of government "interference" so you can think of there being a 'spectrum' of mixing. The United States would be considered less regulated and therefore more on the laissez-faire end of the market economy spectrum (i.e., less regulated and therefore less "mixed") whereas the EU would reside more toward the command economy end of the spectrum (more regulated and therefore more "mixed").
As for capitalism proper, it really doesn't exist in the developed or emerging world, but does in the developing world. Capitalism is basically a laissez-faire structure but with property rights and a legal system to enforce those rights--laissez-faire proper does not have these luxuries. However, this system is often politically chaotic simply because it allows for substantial wealth creation and large income disparities that often result in civil unrest, and the legal system is often controlled by the wealthy which causes it's own problems (e.g., some African countries). Does the U.S. have some capitalist characteristics? Yes, and by the previous paragraph, so do EU countries, but that doesn't mean they are capitalist nations, hence the name "mixed" market economies.
I think you are confusing political structure with economic structure; yes, one can indeed influence the other, however, it's not necessary that they do. For instance, you can have a communist political structure that embraces market economy principles--for example, Vietnam is considered a socialist-leaning mixed economy, at least since the mid 80's, but embraces a communist political culture.
https://givesendgo.com/FreedomConvoy2022/donate
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/girls-in-gangs-carrying-guns-and-stuff-too
The surprising dangers of SMOKING TOBACCO PIPES
https://youtu.be/_zt2lNhHq0I
This is not what you think, watch it.
I couldn't have described what's wrong with the whole "it takes a village" attitude any better than he did...it makes people "weak", useless, blameless, etc....and all while smoking a Grabow Grand Duke bent billiard--AND he's from California! Maybe they are coming to their senses out there? Probably not 🤣
I don't think I would trust anything from a pipe smoker who starts off lighting his pipe with a torch lighter.
Well, it is a rusticated Dr. Graybow, and he must do it pretty carefully, the rim did not look crispy fried, looked like lava…I guess it could have been scorched underneath. The pipe seemed to have a big ole scorch on the bottom outside of the bowl though…..headed for a burnout?
Rising violence at schools impacts students' education
No shit.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/rising-violence-at-schools-impacts-students-education-crime-gun-shooting-crisis
Yep. That headline was written by Capt. Obvious.
10 Most Absurd Excuses From Democrats Caught in Mask Scandals
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/worst-mask-excuses/
Please provide the proper definition, it must have changed over the last 40 years. BTW interesting excuses, they must be learning from their children!
The definition we always employed at Chapel Hill in my political philosophy courses (12 credit hours worth) was a group of individuals (in this case democrats) using whatever means available to actively suppress the equal and inalienable rights of other group(s) opposed to it. You combine that with the definition of hypocrisy and there you have my post earlier.
https://youtu.be/2aGmkuWpFyI
LOL, I know! Giving out free crack pipes with tax payer money! How incredibly stupid is that--only a democrat could up with something like that! Coming from someone who was a major drug dealer and also freebased a ton of cocaine, trust me, giving away free crack pipes will do absolutely nothing but exacerbate and/or prolong someone's drug problem.
So that would include a VP asked to nullify electoral votes, supporters storming the capital, attempts to seize voting machines, frivolous law suits, gerrymandering, and stupid excuses.
Well, let's take them one-by-one:
1. Asking a VP to nullify electoral votes based upon investigations into voter fraud I would not consider fascism
2. The riot that occurred at the capital is like any other riot (BLM, Antifa, Women's March, etc)...and guess what, they all voluntarily left the capital as well--and primarily because they did leave means it couldn't have been "suppression of opposition"
3. Attempts to seize voting machines--again, "attempts"...key word in my definition was "actively"
4. Do law suits suppress rights? If you think they do then you obviously don't believe in laws and/or the court system
5. Gerrymandering is a really cool word, lol...that said, it's only called Gerrymandering when conservatives do it, not when democrats do it
6. Stupid excuses...I guess the only come back I have with that would be a stupid one 🤣
1. Mike Pence was asked to act by power that didn't exist. In a recent speech he made his position clear, "Trump was wrong"
2. Why stay after your objective has left?
3. Attempted burglary is not a crime since it wasn't successful? If they were able to succeed would it then fit "actively."
4. The law suits were rejected for lack of merit thus the court disallowed the suppression of rights. Does a gag order suppress freedom of speech?
5. Examples? I believe the Court recently rejected redistricting in a Republican controlled state ordering it to redraw it's districts.
6. You're a teacher, you've heard every stupid excuse! Like me reading that article I'd bet you laugh and move on.
Merriam Webster's definition of fascism seems a bit more rigorous
That's why I like you, you can hold your own in a debate...I don't agree with a thing you just said of course, lol, but you hold your own for sure. We'll once again have to agree to disagree.
PS: Merriam Webster's definition isn't rigorous, it has been rewritten for the modern times. For instance, Mussolini was a fascist for sure, but didn't have support of the people for the most part--i.e., he wasn't a 'nationalist' so to speak...that's why he was strung up in the public square in Milan. The modern definition of fascism was modified specifically to address Trump's rise to power--hence the words "exalts nation"
My grandfather was born in Italy, came to the US around 1915. He became a citizen, married and raised 5 children. When Mussolini came to power and we went to war he tried to sign up for boot camp but was rejected because of his age! I don't believe the definition of fascism was changed because of Trump, but that it does fit him may reflect his respect for his father's politics. Online dictionaries should date the entries they display after all print versions have a publication date!
BTW you should have heard the conversation, ok debate, between me and one of Sanders canvassers, you would have welcomed me to the John Birch Society!
McConnell spoke out about Jan 6th;
The video of the press conference is on C-SPAN
Well, a lot of us don't consider it a "violent insurrection" and certainly not a threat to democracy. They weren't armed, the violence was limited and so was the looting. BLM causes far more damage than they did. But McConnell also has to walk a fine line between his legitimacy as republican senate leader and that, many times, causes him to word things in ways that split hairs.
I agree, it shouldn't have happened, but you should also remember what happened from your people when Trump was elected...do you remember any of this? And this is from USA Today and ABC News...not known for their conservative views for sure. I especially like the quote from this article "About 4,000 protesters assembled downtown late Thursday chanting “we reject the president-elect!” the Associated Press reported." And I love how these articles talk about "mostly peaceful protests" then go on to list all the damage and arrests that occurred, LOL.
Whether you are at the capital or causing havoc in a major metropolitan center...causing damage to property while "protesting" is simply wrong, but, everyone is free to reject their elected leaders...it's called freedom of speech, and none of that is fascist.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protesters-pepper-sprayed-demonstrations-erupt-across-us/93633154/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/thousands-us-protest-president-elect-donald-trump/story?id=43427653
Oh, and there's this one after he was sworn in
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/violent-protests-break-out-after-trump-sworn-in/
I don't condone violence in the streets and that goes back to the Watts riots. However smashing windows at the Capitol to gain entry and unauthorized entry into legislators offices is beyond peaceful protests agitated into violence. Even your most staunch Republicans ran from the mob. Look at the event for what it was rather than trying to find comparisons.
Exactly, a lot of people got excited, trespassed, took a few dumps on Nancy Pelosi's desk, and left...that's exactly what it was. But as I've stated many times before on this forum, democrats never want to look in the mirror because they won't like what they see (e.g., the riots I posted). As the old saying goes, if you want to see real hate, disagree with a democrat.
It seems to me that there were a few (a relative term considering the US population) batshit crazy far, far, right people that took things too far, probably because they are starving for some sort of national attention. Well, they got it. Problem is, I believe that most of the people there got caught up in the “mob mentality” and regret what happened and their participation. They were just plain stupid with excitement. Some more than others, and not just because they were “caught”.
Now, do I believe Biden won illegitimately, no. I do believe that mail-in ballots are wrong except for special cases, deployed military, overseas civilians, medically incapacitated, and such. It would just be too easy to “cheat” that system (I’m not saying that happened). My boss received four separate US ballots in the mail all in his name. How does that happen? Who knows if they would have caught any “extras” had they been sent in? How tough is it to get and use a valid I.D. to vote. People that don’t have I.D.’s probably choose not to because they are trying to “skirt” something, such as jury duty, the law, taxes, child support…whatever.
No valid United States citizen, no vote. Too lazy to get out of bed or off of the couch and change out of your pajamas, sweats, or stretch pants to vote, guess you don’t vote. This country wasn’t built by people sitting around on their duff. Oh, felons don’t get to vote either, until they have served their time owed to society deemed by a court of law.