Impeachment?

[I-5]

'Socialism' is today's version of the 50's 'pinko commie'. Both come from McCarthey level thinking. It's perfect for Trump to fan the flames of his base with, but it's not rooted in reality, which I guess just doesn't matter.

As ASF said, you'd have to be willfully simplistic to equate a capitalist country with socialized services ie Canada, parts of Asia, and most of Europe (not sure about S. America or Africa) with all out Marxism or worse, Communist Dictatorship.

The big difference is who owns the means of production. In Canada's case, the government owns ZERO means of productions. It's simply a tax and social services system. But God forbid we subject our future children to healthcare that won't bankrupt them.

One more time: no one is actually arguing for actual socialism, but a socialized service system (hence, democratic socialism). You might be afraid it's a gateway, and that would be a different conversation, but don't confuse one with the other.

[idhawkman]

'Socialism' is today's version of the 50's 'pinko commie'. Both come from McCarthey level thinking. It's perfect for Trump to fan the flames of his base with, but it's not rooted in reality, which I guess just doesn't matter.

As ASF said, you'd have to be willfully simplistic to equate a capitalist country with socialized services ie Canada, parts of Asia, and most of Europe (not sure about S. America or Africa) with all out Marxism or worse, Communist Dictatorship.

The big difference is who owns the means of production. In Canada's case, the government owns ZERO means of productions. It's simply a tax and social services system. But God forbid we subject our future children to healthcare that won't bankrupt them.

One more time: no one is actually arguing for actual socialism, but a socialized service system (hence, democratic socialism). You might be afraid it's a gateway, and that would be a different conversation, but don't confuse one with the other.

And everyone of those countries that you exalt can not defend their populace from attack. They require the U.S. to do it for them. "IF" they tried to build a military large enough to protect their population they would fail even worse than they already are.

[I-5]

Good point, ID. So you're saying the price for our role as world police is medieval social services (actually probably pre-medieval).

Interestingly, do you know who agrees with you about the US military? French president Macron. He said: "We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America. We will not protect the Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army."

Guess who was pissed off hearing that from Macron? Yep, Trump. Too bad he's the one that created the atmosphere for Macron to say that by pulling out of numerous treaties since he entered office. Maybe you'll get your wish and have Europe build up it's military again.

[I-5]

Also, nice try changing the subject. Socialized services is NOT socialism, marxism, or communism.

[Aseahawkfan]

Oh c'mon Asea, every time a socialist nations starts they say the same thing you said above. That or, "We know how to do it right and all those others did it the wrong way." History is something you know and familiarize yourself with. You know this is the slope you can't stop once momentum starts.

We literally have years of proof that you can socialize medicine, the military, education, police, and prison services effectively within a capitalist structure. I think I'll take that proof over your paranoia that this is an all or nothing game.

You were in a socialized service known as the military that worked just fine within a capitalist system.

Not sure why you think the same can't be done for medicine without compromising capitalism.

So you are signed onto Obama's "new norm" status for the U.S.?

I'm not into boogieman politics. I don't need some leader to worship. I don't look at the name of Obama or Trump as anything other than men. I think you can make progressive step forward with government while maintaining freedoms. I have no idea what your "new norm" talk is. I do not fear progress or a united world. That is a natural progression for humanity as it has always been working towards. We live on an planet with limited resources with 7 billion other humans and growing. We have no choice to adapt government to deal with that reality whether or not some folks can't handle the necessary changes to manage it.

[idhawkman]

Also, nice try changing the subject. Socialized services is NOT socialism, marxism, or communism.

There's only one pool of money and if you rob the piggy bank for free giveaways, then you won't have it for protection.

[idhawkman]

Good point, ID. So you're saying the price for our role as world police is medieval social services (actually probably pre-medieval).

Interestingly, do you know who agrees with you about the US military? French president Macron. He said: "We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America. We will not protect the Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army."

Guess who was pissed off hearing that from Macron? Yep, Trump. Too bad he's the one that created the atmosphere for Macron to say that by pulling out of numerous treaties since he entered office. Maybe you'll get your wish and have Europe build up it's military again.

I didn't see anything about Trump being pissed at Macron for such a thing. I bet if you post the link you'll find that Trump is not upset that he wants to protect themselves but that he's not funding NATO sufficiently. Also, if he creates his own army, that's fine but to leave out the other EU countries after we've paid their way for so many years is insulting. Does the article or info you quote say anything about Macron wanting to exit NATO because that's how you make it sound. Again, I think Trump would be just fine if they fully funded their portion of NATO BEFORE they build their own that they don't share with NATO and the EU. (NOTE: The NATO funding is spending on their own militaries which is suppose to be 2% of their GDP but few countries in NATO actually spend that on their own military. So not sure how Macron would separate out what is for NATO and what is for their own protection.)

[idhawkman]

Oh c'mon Asea, every time a socialist nations starts they say the same thing you said above. That or, "We know how to do it right and all those others did it the wrong way." History is something you know and familiarize yourself with. You know this is the slope you can't stop once momentum starts.

We literally have years of proof that you can socialize medicine, the military, education, police, and prison services effectively within a capitalist structure. I think I'll take that proof over your paranoia that this is an all or nothing game.

You were in a socialized service known as the military that worked just fine within a capitalist system.

Not sure why you think the same can't be done for medicine without compromising capitalism.

So you are signed onto Obama's "new norm" status for the U.S.?

I'm not into boogieman politics. I don't need some leader to worship. I don't look at the name of Obama or Trump as anything other than men. I think you can make progressive step forward with government while maintaining freedoms. I have no idea what your "new norm" talk is. I do not fear progress or a united world. That is a natural progression for humanity as it has always been working towards. We live on an planet with limited resources with 7 billion other humans and growing. We have no choice to adapt government to deal with that reality whether or not some folks can't handle the necessary changes to manage it.

We just disagree. You think it is boogieman scare tactics but I've witnessed it first hand multiple times and know it to be worse than you ever hear on TV.

[Aseahawkfan]

And everyone of those countries that you exalt can not defend their populace from attack. They require the U.S. to do it for them. "IF" they tried to build a military large enough to protect their population they would fail even worse than they already are.

The constant unprovable excuse of the right. I would say population size is the much more important reason why such nations cannot defend themselves from say China or Russia, not the lack of a military. England and Germany would both whoop most smaller nations asses in a military fight. So there is only China, Russia, and India we compete against. We do so for our benefit since we would fear their reprisal as well. We do not defend the smaller nations because of some altruistic duty, we do so for mutual benefit.

You want to keep bringing the old excuses into the argument while the world changes and continues to change.

Well, I want to test to see if what you claim is true. I think we can do far better with healthcare.

These nations you say are doing awful aren't. So not even sure why you are making those completely unsupported claims.

[Aseahawkfan]

We just disagree. You think it is boogieman scare tactics but I've witnessed it first hand multiple times and know it to be worse than you ever hear on TV.

You are in Canada, Germany, Scandinavia, and many other Western nations with socialized services when they failed? Like I said, you're stuck in the past. Keep thinking whatever you want while the world moves around you like it has always done.

[idhawkman]

And everyone of those countries that you exalt can not defend their populace from attack. They require the U.S. to do it for them. "IF" they tried to build a military large enough to protect their population they would fail even worse than they already are.

The constant unprovable excuse of the right. I would say population size is the much more important reason why such nations cannot defend themselves from say China or Russia, not the lack of a military. England and Germany would both whoop most smaller nations asses in a military fight.

Unfortunately, you are living in the past. Back in the 80's you would have been correct on this but now, they can't defend their own butts. The Brits have only 5 frigits in their Navy and can't even protect their ships in the Hormuz straights. They have to escort them one at a time because they don't have enough ships to defend that and their homeland. The Germans only have 5 subs and none are seaworthy. Their armies have been decimated and let go after years of not funding their militaries.

So there is only China, Russia, and India we compete against. We do so for our benefit since we would fear their reprisal as well. We do not defend the smaller nations because of some altruistic duty, we do so for mutual benefit.

You want to keep bringing the old excuses into the argument while the world changes and continues to change.

And yet you don't change your thinking on who is actually protecting the world. You're right, the world has changed but you only see the change you want to see.

Well, I want to test to see if what you claim is true. I think we can do far better with healthcare.

These nations you say are doing awful aren't. So not even sure why you are making those completely unsupported claims.

Go back and re-read and you'll see that I didn't say their health care was failing.

[I-5]

ID, Macron wasn't proposing it as a French military buildup, but rather a greater collective EU force, so he's definitely not trying to leave any. European countries out. The irony is, if and when it happens, they'll STILL have their social services. No country is as backwards in terms of supporting the health of its people than the US, and that's not about to change. Trump definitely started the movement felt in Europe about growing more independently from US military influence (or lack thereof), so let's thank our president for that!

“Europeans have to rely more on their own capabilities, but the way to respond for now is not the same across Europe,” Martin Quencez, an analyst at the German Marshal Fund in Paris, said in an interview, adding that some countries like Poland and Norway would prefer to reinforce U.S. relations. “This is obviously a case study for the French to show their EU allies what could be done for a European defense. And while the White House has since offered a defense of NATO and its commitment to the western alliance’s shared security, the mood in Europe has changed. Merkel and Macron sent a signal across the Atlantic last month with the signature of the Aachen Treaty, a renewal of friendship vows between the two former enemies. The accord highlighted the need for a more united defense industry as a way to bolster the safety of the European Union in the face of flagging American support.

“We’re committing ourselves to a common military culture, a common defense industry, a common line on weapons exports,” Merkel said at the signing ceremony. “With this, we both want to do our part to contribute toward a European army.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tary-drive

[Aseahawkfan]

Unfortunately, you are living in the past. Back in the 80's you would have been correct on this but now, they can't defend their own butts. The Brits have only 5 frigits in their Navy and can't even protect their ships in the Hormuz straights. They have to escort them one at a time because they don't have enough ships to defend that and their homeland. The Germans only have 5 subs and none are seaworthy. Their armies have been decimated and let go after years of not funding their militaries.

Who exactly are we fighting that we need this massive military buildup?

And yet you don't change your thinking on who is actually protecting the world. You're right, the world has changed but you only see the change you want to see.

Protecting the world from what? Most nations still have the capacity to deal with the current military requirements. It's America stuck in the past thinking we have to have this huge military. Even Rumsfeld for all the criticism directed at him was smart to want to reduce manpower and move towards a smaller, more mobile military because the standard military structure is unnecessary.

We are building robots and other automated systems for dealing with military threats. And there is currently no one large to fight and no one much interested in large scale warfare. So what are we defending? Waterways in Iran? Get real. Some British ship being taken isn't statement about the British Navy. They have a large enough fleet to handle it, but it wasn't necessary.

Go back and re-read and you'll see that I didn't say their health care was failing.

No part of them is failing. Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, all doing fine. The only thing you could argue is they aren't breeding because a life of luxury and soft work does not encourage breeding. All the breeding pressure from an agriculture based society is gone. We live in a high tech, interconnected world. And we're still running parts of our nation like we're living in the Cold War and a massive farm society.

[idhawkman]

ID, Macron wasn't proposing it as a French military buildup, but rather a greater collective EU force, so he's definitely not trying to leave any. European countries out. The irony is, if and when it happens, they'll STILL have their social services. No country is as backwards in terms of supporting the health of its people than the US, and that's not about to change. Trump definitely started the movement felt in Europe about growing more independently from US military influence (or lack thereof), so let's thank our president for that!

First of all this is a direct quote from what you posted:

Interestingly, do you know who agrees with you about the US military? French president Macron. He said: "We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America. We will not protect the Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army."

Second, do you know about the riots in France that have been going on for the better part of a year and what caused them? There's no way they can raise the funds for an army and keep their social programs - the people won't allow it.

“Europeans have to rely more on their own capabilities, but the way to respond for now is not the same across Europe,” Martin Quencez, an analyst at the German Marshal Fund in Paris, said in an interview, adding that some countries like Poland and Norway would prefer to reinforce U.S. relations. “This is obviously a case study for the French to show their EU allies what could be done for a European defense. And while the White House has since offered a defense of NATO and its commitment to the western alliance’s shared security, the mood in Europe has changed. Merkel and Macron sent a signal across the Atlantic last month with the signature of the Aachen Treaty, a renewal of friendship vows between the two former enemies. The accord highlighted the need for a more united defense industry as a way to bolster the safety of the European Union in the face of flagging American support.

Yep, Let's see if they put their money where their mouth is though. I'll believe it when I see it. This is all just posturing by the EU and Trump won't be buying into this at all.

“We’re committing ourselves to a common military culture, a common defense industry, a common line on weapons exports,” Merkel said at the signing ceremony. “With this, we both want to do our part to contribute toward a European army.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tary-drive

Big plans but again, no money and when they start to spend that money, watch what happens to those countries. No matter how much people want to qualify socialism with "democratic socialism" and other adornments, its still socialism - just on a slower boat.

[I-5]

ID, this may be a non-sequitur, but I'm just curious. How many countries have you visited? Work, military, vacation...

[idhawkman]

ID, this may be a non-sequitur, but I'm just curious. How many countries have you visited? Work, military, vacation...

You know, I've never sat down to count them. The ones off the top of my head are:

Canada
Mexico
Honduras
El Salvadore
Phillipines
Guam isn't really another country it is a US territory
S. Korea
Thailand
Germany
Austria
Poland
Russia
Kazahkstan
Kyrgistan
Ukraine
England
and there's a few I can't talk about.

[Aseahawkfan]

Second, do you know about the riots in France that have been going on for the better part of a year and what caused them? There's no way they can raise the funds for an army and keep their social programs - the people won't allow it.

I stopped investing in France because they are stupid. I did that after I invested in a company called Orange and read an article about an employee's family that sued Orange for "over-working" him forcing him to commit suicide. After I read that, I said I'm done with this country. They are stupid. The guy didn't even work that many hours. It was stupid. France is stupid beyond their socialism for whatever. Even so, they are living fairly well and have a nice long lifespan and comfortable life.

Yep, Let's see if they put their money where their mouth is though. I'll believe it when I see it. This is all just posturing by the EU and Trump won't be buying into this at all.

Why? They stopped Colonialism a long time ago. They had their fun as world powers. They found it too costly, just like we might someday. They spend more time taking care of their people now. They don't have the need for a large military with Europe mostly unified. They primarily used to fight wars against other European nations. That has past. Who do they have to fear? Russia, America, or China?

Big plans but again, no money and when they start to spend that money, watch what happens to those countries. No matter how much people want to qualify socialism with "democratic socialism" and other adornments, its still socialism - just on a slower boat.

America could reduce its military costs ands still police the world just fine. We're the 3rd or 4th most populous nation on the planet. We are literally unassailable in the West other than possible terrorist attacks. No one has the ability to project more power than us. China has one aircraft carrier, maybe two. No war time experience. And generally doesn't like to make war. Russia's population is falling. Their economy not great. Their navy never rivaled ours. Only thing keeping them relevant is nukes. India? They're not even aggressive.

It's time to shrink a little and reduce costs. World just isn't looking to make war on a large scale. Too costly to everyone.

As far as socialism, we've been socio-capitalist in America for ages. The level of taxation we have now is what would be considered socialist to most folks. Government found a smarter way to backdoor us with socialism called taxation. Why own the means of production when you can just take a piece of everyone's productivity for socialist roads, military, police, prisons, bureaucracy, and so much more. We been socialized for ages. When the government is taking 20 cents or more of every dollar you make legally using a gun aimed at you if you refuse, you're socialized. The American people allowed this a long time ago in exchange for a massive infrastructure to keep them alive.

Watch this video. Tell me this isn't true, IDHawkman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k67_imEHTPE

The shorter version of the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biuXIzSWEHs

We been screwed for years. Some don't want to see it.