Zecario’s opinion has nothing to do with being objectively wrong. Why even bring that up?
Markets have always been regulated in the U.S.
Okay… What does that have to do with what I wrote?
It’s heavily regulated.
Only if you ignore who/what will replace insurance companies.
*(and you agree that’s the source of the problem. I don’t).
She wants to remove private insurance for government single-payer. That is, by definition, suggesting we do away with free market concepts.
She’s proposed spending $90,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years.
Assuming she has actually thought about her positions… I think it comes with a denouncement of most capitalistic principles.
1 Like
He described to you what an ideology means and what happens when it is applied. I told you China was governed under such an ideology. The Chinese socialist literature I brought up wasn’t theory. It was written WHILE it was being applied.
It’s not an exception if you actually think about it.
Of course it’s an exception. It only applies to half the population.
Yes, but then you went on to suggest that when socialism is applied it leads to communism.
Your logic is flawed my friend. Making the argument that an ideology was applied once, and such and such happened, and then you jumped to: policy with parts of the original ideology being applied will result in the same outcome as the first time the ideology was applied.
This way of reasoning will not result in anything that we can determine is true or false. Does this make sense?
I did not suggest this or make this up. It’s part of the bloody ideology that all the failed socialist countries in history tried.
When have I ever called A POLICY socialist? You’re simply making things up now. @loppar distinctly told you that just because certain policies that YOU term as socialist are applied, this does NOT make the country socialist.
If you believe this part of the ideology you are believing in flawed logic.
It doesn’t matter that you don’t like it. Believing that will happen is flawed reason.
That is, by definition, doing away with a market industry.
On top of the state not owning doctor practices, it makes her (agreed it’s radical) concept akin to a water utility (very strictly regulated with minimal profit margin, usually so low it’s govt run).
The number being insane doesn’t magically make her denouncing all of capitalism. It just makes it a bad unsustainable idea. That’s AOC derangement syndrome for sure.
It does nothing of the sort. The govt has previously heavily regulated industries based on how impactful and negatively effected the consumer is by it.
Why aren’t people bitching about taking regs away from utility prices? That’s the most anti capitalist shit in the entire country. Obamacare and the green new deal are libertarian fantasy compared to how heavily our utilities are regulated on profits.
She’s an idiot and an easy target. She’s just the current flavor and gets a lot of clicks so they will run her crazy until the well of money from the buzz over her is dry.
But it does pose the question of which is better for the country long term:
Trump who cuts taxes big time but still is going to spend like crazy.
A generic Dem who is going to spend like crazy but say they will pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy.
I don’t want Sanders as President but the guy at least says “here’s what I want to do.” We have a President who we have no idea minus the wall what he wants to do. Changes as quick as Kansas weather.
Paraphrasing but essentially said he has a great health care plan where no one loses coverage. Expect we have absolutely no idea what that means. He’s about as vague as can be. And sure these Dems running on spending a lot, but that’s just the status quo. At least so far none of them have said they don’t care if we default, we can’t go broke because printing money, and the debt will explode during someone else’s watch.
Fuck man you run or something. We gotta get some moderates up in this bitch.
What on earth are you talking about? This is not about believing what will happen.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
Do you actually know anything about socialism?
It can only apply to women… Literally 100% of this group.
People that are pro-life want all human life to have the opportunity at life and liberty. There is no exception. You only think there is because you think a “fetus” life should be subservient to a woman’s freedom from responsibility.
Cool. I’ll hold my breath for when she next praises capitalism.
3 Likes
Exactly. A man has more freedom when it comes to his body.
She also carries more of the burden of responsibility, apparently.
She does that every time she uses her phone.
Gtfo, this is why I ignore you.
I was once on the socialist bandwagon, Then I grew up, saw how hard I worked, and how mediocre the world was. I’m not for forking money out to that.
1 Like
You do know you agreed that it was an exception. You just want to argue abortion when I just pointed out it was an exception, without judging abortion one way or another.
Fuck that.
Naj, I didn’t because it isn’t, but it keep on troll Raj or Zeb or whoever you are.
1 Like