Liberals: Do you really want huge govt when the people may vote in an evil person?

[hakujinbakasama]

the way i see it, big government is needed to keep life fair for those who can't make it to being rich.

keep businesses in line, take care of the poor and middle class, and if i had my way we'd make sure everyone has a home.

You can see it that way all day long. It doesn't mean that it works that way what so ever.

[Stormspellz]

The thesis here is that it may work on a short time frame, but on a longer term time frame, socialism MUST collapse into a dictatorship.

It hasn't happened in Europe for the simple reason that a super charismatic dictator hasn't emerged in a while. Once he does though, Europe has greased the wheels to his reign. You've given him everything he needs to oppress you.

What!?! like what!

[Teebone]

For the record, most people don't see Trump as evil per say; more like unqualified in the same way Romney was. America isn't a business.

[hakujinbakasama]

For the record, most people don't see Trump as evil per say; more like unqualified in the same way Romney was. America isn't a business.

Are you confident about that? Would you equally say your state college isn't a business? What about your local hospital?

[Dug]

For the record, most people don't see Trump as evil per say; more like unqualified in the same way Romney was. America isn't a business.

Essentially my line of reasoning. I fucking hate the shit Trump says but at the end of the day I know he's just pandering to the far, far right and if nominated would take a more moderate and maybe even liberal stance on issues. One way or another he's a clown not fit for office. It would be like electing Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton to the presidency.

[breadisfunny]

Do you really want corporations ruling America, implementing policy that would put people aside in the name of profit?

we almost already have that with tpp rolling out.

[Faerillis]

The thesis here is that it may work on a short time frame, but on a longer term time frame, socialism MUST collapse into a dictatorship.

It hasn't happened in Europe for the simple reason that a super charismatic dictator hasn't emerged in a while. Once he does though, Europe has greased the wheels to his reign. You've given him everything he needs to oppress you.

.....So your thesis is that exceptional people with charisma and the desire to do evil can and will bend systems to their will as best they can?

Yeah it doesn't matter what form of Elective Government you have that will be a risk. I mean use the American Corporatist Model of governing. Now lets say you had someone who felt it was in the best interest of the government to extend their surveillance networks to cover their own citizens without the need for evidence to be presented? That could nev.... oh wait that happened under your Extreme Right Wing Party (the Republicans) and your Far Right Wing Party (Democrats) decided to leave it as is.

Of course looking at your signature it's pretty damn obvious that sense won't be talked in to you. Tin Foil Hats might not protect from much but their barriers against sense are almost impenetrable

- - - Updated - - -

Are you confident about that? Would you equally say your state college isn't a business? What about your local hospital?

Most of the reason the rest of the world mocks the shit out of America is because you think you can run Hospitals like businesses. I would mock the States doing that with Post-Secondary education but I'm from Canada and we've wandered down that same imbecilic path.

[Teebone]

Are you confident about that? Would you equally say your state college isn't a business? What about your local hospital?

You can't fire a citizen. You can't outsource the public. I'm talking the social contract between the public and the the governing body that serves it, not municipalities that are privately funded through donations. If you can't tell the difference between the two you might want to stop posting about this.

[Faerillis]

Romney wasn't unqualified.

Romney ran a Venture Capital Company. His entire business model was buy it cheap, screw over the employees and sell it for a profit. If there is anything that should tell you someone shouldn't run a country, that's it.

[Teebone]

Essentially my line of reasoning. I fucking hate the shit Trump says but at the end of the day I know he's just pandering to the far, far right and if nominated would take a more moderate and maybe even liberal stance on issues. One way or another he's a clown not fit for office. It would be like electing Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton to the presidency.

Dear god I would self-immolate were that to happen

[Endus]

Romney wasn't unqualified.

Yeah, as much as I disagreed with his views, he was qualified for the Presidency.

The problem with Trump is that all he has going for his is his business sense, when his business sense is, by any objective analysis, terrible. If he'd invested his money in an unmanaged stock index fund (not known for their high performance), he'd have at least twice as much money as he actually does, today; http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-yo...-donald-trump/

His "business acumen" has lost him money over a slow, safe investment. That's not something you usually brag about.

[Yvaelle]

Romney ran a Venture Capital Company. His entire business model was buy it cheap, screw over the employees and sell it for a profit. If there is anything that should tell you someone shouldn't run a country, that's it.

Depends who is funding you - for a billion in advertisements, Romney almost bought the presidency (cheap), fired all the Americans, and sold America to the corporations for perhaps trillions. He's one of the world's experts at that.

If you want to make trillions of dollars in corporate profits, hijacking and selling off America is an excellent business model - and few people in the world are more qualified to execute that strategy than Romney

Edit: Obvious hyperbole is hopefully obvious, it was just fun to write ^^

[unbound]

So this is a question that I've often asked but current events make me want to ask it again.

For you liberals and socialists, you say you want a very strong & powerful government. One that controls the corporations, maybe even the means of production. You want to give it the power to handle all of our problems. Benefits for the poor, the sick, the old, those struggling with emergencies. To accomplish these goals, you must give government HUGE levers of power to control the economy and even your lives. Further, you have even begun to embrace the chief executive ruling by executive order to override the congress (apparently for no other reason than Obama is a liberal and conservatives run congress).

But at the same time, liberals and socialists are mortified that a large section of the public wants to elect Donald Trump. You seem to think he is basically an evil person.

So let's put these two ideas together shall we?

Why do you want a huge powerful government when it DOES seem possible that, sooner or later, the public will elect a totally evil person that will completely corrupt that powerful government to suit himself. I mean, you must admit a dictator would LOVE the principles the socialism plus this intense desire to strengthen the executive. A dictator wants a nation to fully adopt socialism because he can corrupt it and turn it into a dictatorship. When there is limited government and sharp separation of powers, its not as likely.

So why do you even embrace socialism when this seems to be the end result? Sooner or later, it will happen. Maybe right away, maybe in 100 years, but its coming if you adopt socialism. Isn't free market capitalism paired with limited government a smarter bet?

Socialism seems incredibly naive and foolish. It fails to take into account human nature.

Another straw man. Was it fun to knock over?

[xChurch]

Your premise is laughably false. hahahahaha.

[hakujinbakasama]

Most of the reason the rest of the world mocks the shit out of America is because you think you can run Hospitals like businesses. I would mock the States doing that with Post-Secondary education but I'm from Canada and we've wandered down that same imbecilic path.

I'm not saying doing so is right or wrong. They are conflicting ideas and one does not necessarily "win out" over the other as they both come with their own list of problems. That being said, I've never looked deep into the statistics on the rating level. Do I really believe that all of China scores #1 in math? Not on your fucking life. So we don't really have a system of current which we can look at and reliably say "this one works the best!"

Secondly, it's very VERY difficult to run "free college" with a failing k-12 system and a god damn dump truck full of socio-economic issues and pretend it will be a fix and yield great results.

[buck008]

The phrasing of the question implies that the modern conservative wants a smaller government, which is demonstrably untrue based on their actions once in power.

To actually answer your question, I'd refer you to the work of Keynes.

[Theendgamelv3]

This person would have to completely corrupt the other 2 branches of the US government for this to happen. Under normal circumstances a dictatorship won't probably happen due to checks and balances. In a time of extreme direst I can see it happening, but with someone liberal or conservative. George W Bush had the Patriot Act which increased government spying on its citizens and last time a checked Bush was a Republican.

[Xeones]

you say you want a very strong & powerful government.

No, YOU say that.

Further, you have even begun to embrace the chief executive ruling by executive order to override the congress

Says YOU.

apparently for no other reason than Obama is a liberal and conservatives run congress

Obama is a conservative. Even if you refuse to call him that you are flat out lying by calling him a liberal. You wanna know why Bernie is doing so well? He's the the first liberal to run for president in my life time.

But at the same time, liberals and socialists are mortified that a large section of the public wants to elect Donald Trump. You seem to think he is basically an evil person.

Why would I not be mortified by people voting for a authoritarian?

Why do you want a huge powerful government when it DOES seem possible that, sooner or later, the public will elect a totally evil person that will completely corrupt that powerful government to suit himself. I mean, you must admit a dictator would LOVE the principles the socialism plus this intense desire to strengthen the executive. A dictator wants a nation to fully adopt socialism because he can corrupt it and turn it into a dictatorship. When there is limited government and sharp separation of powers, its not as likely.

Do you even know what you're talking about here? You're literally walking in circles and contradicting yourself.

So why do you even embrace socialism when this seems to be the end result? Sooner or later, it will happen. Maybe right away, maybe in 100 years, but its coming if you adopt socialism. Isn't free market capitalism paired with limited government a smarter bet?

I'm not "embracing socialism" I'm for common sense measures. You're the one who wants to equate socialism with communism and dictators.

Socialism seems incredibly naive and foolish. It fails to take into account human nature.

The same can be said of capitalism. You have people worshiping corporations like a religion when they are soulless constructs that exist for the sole purpose of extracting as much wealth as possible from the people. You have politicians telling us that giving large tax breaks to corporations will cause them to create jobs for no reason when you don't do anything to bolster demand. We have "free trade deals" where you have companies like Nestle going to Thailand to literally use slave labor.

I don't embrace all of any ideology because they are all wrong. You wish to see the world in black and white which makes you wrong. I'm pretty sure when you write these threads you feel like you've made good points, but you haven't. Right now I'm a big fan of pushing for programs which fall on the line of socialism, that isn't because I hate capitalism but because the balance of power is currently skewed way too far in the wrong direction. I know writing this will fall on deaf ears but I still feel I need to do it.

[oxymoronic]

The thesis here is that it may work on a short time frame, but on a longer term time frame, socialism MUST collapse into a dictatorship.

It hasn't happened in Europe for the simple reason that a super charismatic dictator hasn't emerged in a while. Once he does though, Europe has greased the wheels to his reign. You've given him everything he needs to oppress you.

europe isnt socialist tho...

[shadowmouse]

"Evil" people find ways to accomplish evil. The question doesn't really make any sense. If a person is actively evil (and I have huge issues with that word) they will use any system of government to accomplish their ends if given the power to do so.