Can Biden win?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Yes. Right wing fascism/socialism is just as bad as left wing socialism/communism.

Fascism is bad. Antifa is bad.

Ofcourse...power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...so for all to be well, we shall have to wait for the dawn of Libertarianism...

[Vlad Drkulec]

Ofcourse...power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...so for all to be well, we shall have to wait for the dawn of Libertarianism...

There is a play about that: Waiting for Godot.

[Erik Malmsten]

How Norway got rid of Antifa with the help of Iron Willy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZdXPfzgRtY

"Most people thought Antifa were losers and openly ridiculed them."

The people who support antifa are losers and should be openly ridiculed.

Stupid people who use the fascist label are usually quite limited in their intellectual abilities except in those few cases where they are applying the label to actual fascist which is not the case in the context where it was used on this forum.

Geez, Vlad I thought you were talking about yourself as in this forum you have called Democrats ""communists."

Stupid people who use the communist label are usually quite limited in their intellectual abilities except in those few cases where they are applying the label to actual communist which is not the case in the context where it was used on this forum.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Geez, Vlad I thought you were talking about yourself as in this forum you have called Democrats ""communists."

Stupid people who use the communist label are usually quite limited in their intellectual abilities except in those few cases where they are applying the label to actual communist which is not the case in the context where it was used on this forum.

When Fidel Castro came to power there were debates at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Windsor among the doctors. My father said that Castro was a communist. The others said that there was no evidence of that. How could he say that? My dad said, he knew that he was a communist because he had heard the same speeches before in Yugoslavia. He could smell a communist from his rhetoric. The doctors said he was crazy though within a very few years, they had to admit that he had been right. Bernie Sanders is a communist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Kamala Harris is to the left of Bernie Sanders.

The curse of Cassandra was that she knew the future but she was doomed to have no one believe her. until it was too late

[Bob Gillanders]

Bernie Sanders is a communist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Kamala Harris is to the left of Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders - Democratic Socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcAQ...b_channel=CNBC

[Vlad Drkulec]

Bernie Sanders - Democratic Socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcAQ...b_channel=CNBC

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

People's democratic dictatorship of Mao

The German Democratic Republic (GDR)

Democratic socialism

It all fits.

[Dilip Panjwani]

There is a play about that: Waiting for Godot.

Ah, well! The absurdity of waiting for anything!!

[Erik Malmsten]

When Fidel Castro came to power there were debates at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Windsor among the doctors. My father said that Castro was a communist. The others said that there was no evidence of that. How could he say that? My dad said, he knew that he was a communist because he had heard the same speeches before in Yugoslavia. He could smell a communist from his rhetoric. The doctors said he was crazy though within a very few years, they had to admit that he had been right. Bernie Sanders is a communist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Kamala Harris is to the left of Bernie Sanders.

The curse of Cassandra was that she knew the future but she was doomed to have no one believe her. until it was too late

So the mental block Vlad has in recognizing the social democrat governments of western Europe is tied to traumic memories of his father of the brutal Stalinist communism. There was no way to vote out the corrupt leaders and bureaucrats.

Yet in Canada Tommy Douglas, Baptist minister, led a Social Democratic government with 17 years of a balanced budget.

Over the years I have met and argued with several communists and they despise social democrat "reformers" as they want to destroy our capitalist society. Social Democrats want to make life less brutal for the misfortunate.

It was a Conservative government that introduced income tax to fund the war, and Capitalists profitted greatly from the government business, and still do. We live in a mixed economy. Unfortunately moving factories to the third world has decimated the middle class and upper working class and their spending power.

Surely there must he a "third way" between muderous Stalinism and unregulated destruction by out of control capitalism.

[Bob Gillanders]

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

People's democratic dictatorship of Mao

The German Democratic Republic (GDR)

Democratic socialism

It all fits.

In 2020 we should all be painfully aware that labels can be misleading. I find this is particularly true when speaking in political terms. Labels like Capitalist, Socialist, Communist are thrown about indiscriminately. The term Socialism has different meanings throughout the world.

Bernie Sanders supports the political system of Democratic Socialism as practiced in Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. These are not Communist countries: they all have capitalist economies and strong government social programs. The people are happy and free.

Trump and the GOP love to label Bernie as a radical left-wing socialist, which in right-wing circles translates as communist (aka. Cuba, Venezuela). This is crazy talk.

Instead of accepting labels, I toil to understand the policies a candidate promotes. Ignore the propaganda campaigns, ignore the talking heads, just listen to Bernie with an open mind. His top priorities are affordable health care for all, a living minimum wage, higher taxes for the wealthy. These are popular issues supported by a wide majority throughout the USA, red and blue states. These are not radical ideas.

If you don’t agree with any or all of the Democratic Socialism platform, or have some personal issue with Bernie Sanders, that’s fine. But to just label him as a Communist is just lazy. And Sad.

[Vlad Drkulec]

In 2020 we should all be painfully aware that labels can be misleading. I find this is particularly true when speaking in political terms. Labels like Capitalist, Socialist, Communist are thrown about indiscriminately. The term Socialism has different meanings throughout the world.

Bernie Sanders supports the political system of Democratic Socialism as practiced in Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. These are not Communist countries: they all have capitalist economies and strong government social programs. The people are happy and free.

Trump and the GOP love to label Bernie as a radical left-wing socialist, which in right-wing circles translates as communist (aka. Cuba, Venezuela). This is crazy talk.

Instead of accepting labels, I toil to understand the policies a candidate promotes. Ignore the propaganda campaigns, ignore the talking heads, just listen to Bernie with an open mind. His top priorities are affordable health care for all, a living minimum wage, higher taxes for the wealthy. These are popular issues supported by a wide majority throughout the USA, red and blue states. These are not radical ideas.

If you don’t agree with any or all of the Democratic Socialism platform, or have some personal issue with Bernie Sanders, that’s fine. But to just label him as a Communist is just lazy. And Sad.

The problem with this is that Sweden and Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries would reject your characterization and the Bernie myth of their status as socialist utopian economies. They are not. Any successes were already present prior to their socialist experiments which they have largely retreated from because they just didn't work.

https://thenewamerican.com/debunking...n-scandinavia/

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17...ivately-owned/

Here is one of several books on the topic:


Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism Kindle Edition
by Dr. Nima Sanandaji (Author)

https://www.amazon.ca/Debunking-Utop...=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Left-leaning academics, liberal pop stars such as Bruce Springsteen, and Democrat politicians from Bernie Sanders to Bill and Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama all have one thing in common: they are avid admirers of Nordic-style social democracy. The reason is simple. At first glance, Nordic countries seem to have everything liberals want to see in America: equal income distribution, good health, low levels of poverty, and thriving economies, all co-existing with big welfare states. By copying Nordic policies, many in the American left hope to transform America to a similar socialist "utopia."

In Debunking Utopia, Swedish author Nima Sanandaji explains why this is all wishful thinking. Certainly, some aspects of Nordic welfare states, such as childcare provision, merit the admiration of liberals. But overall, it is a unique culture based on hard work, healthy diets, social cohesion and high levels of trust that have made Nordic countries successful. Sanandaji explains how the Nordic people adopted this culture of success in order to survive in the unforgiving Scandinavian climate. He systematically proves that the high levels of income equality, high lifespans and other signs of social success in the Nordics all predate the expansion of the welfare state. If anything, the Nordic countries reached their peak during the mid-twentieth century, when they had low taxes and small welfare states. Perhaps most astonishing are his findings that Nordic-Americans consistently outperform their cousins who live across the ocean. People of Nordic descent who live under the American capitalist system not only enjoy higher levels of income, but also a lower level of poverty than the citizens of the Nordic countries themselves.

Sanandaji's previous writings on the roots of Nordic success have gained media attention around the world and been translated into many languages. Debunking Utopia, which expands on this work, should be read by all—liberals and conservatives alike—who follow the debate over the future of American welfare. As Sanandaji shows, there is much Americans can learn from both the successes and failures of Nordic-style social democracy.

[Erik Malmsten]

The problem with this is that Sweden and Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries would reject your characterization and the Bernie myth of their status as socialist utopian economies. They are not. Any successes were already present prior to their socialist experiments which they have largely retreated from because they just didn't work.

https://thenewamerican.com/debunking...n-scandinavia/

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17...ivately-owned/

Here is one of several books on the topic:


Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism Kindle Edition
by Dr. Nima Sanandaji (Author)

https://www.amazon.ca/Debunking-Utop...=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Left-leaning academics, liberal pop stars such as Bruce Springsteen, and Democrat politicians from Bernie Sanders to Bill and Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama all have one thing in common: they are avid admirers of Nordic-style social democracy. The reason is simple. At first glance, Nordic countries seem to have everything liberals want to see in America: equal income distribution, good health, low levels of poverty, and thriving economies, all co-existing with big welfare states. By copying Nordic policies, many in the American left hope to transform America to a similar socialist "utopia."

In Debunking Utopia, Swedish author Nima Sanandaji explains why this is all wishful thinking. Certainly, some aspects of Nordic welfare states, such as childcare provision, merit the admiration of liberals. But overall, it is a unique culture based on hard work, healthy diets, social cohesion and high levels of trust that have made Nordic countries successful. Sanandaji explains how the Nordic people adopted this culture of success in order to survive in the unforgiving Scandinavian climate. He systematically proves that the high levels of income equality, high lifespans and other signs of social success in the Nordics all predate the expansion of the welfare state. If anything, the Nordic countries reached their peak during the mid-twentieth century, when they had low taxes and small welfare states. Perhaps most astonishing are his findings that Nordic-Americans consistently outperform their cousins who live across the ocean. People of Nordic descent who live under the American capitalist system not only enjoy higher levels of income, but also a lower level of poverty than the citizens of the Nordic countries themselves.

Sanandaji's previous writings on the roots of Nordic success have gained media attention around the world and been translated into many languages. Debunking Utopia, which expands on this work, should be read by all—liberals and conservatives alike—who follow the debate over the future of American welfare. As Sanandaji shows, there is much Americans can learn from both the successes and failures of Nordic-style social democracy.

Yes Sweden is no Utopia. What impressed me was the urban planning that put people first. E.g. high rises had the first floor reserved for seniors or handicapped or daycare. And the trust, no need for bicycle locks. And they, like Europe, get 6 weeks off in the summer.

About 20% of Swedes (famines) left in the 19th century. When industry started there was a labour shortage so there is a good history of labour rights. The Social Democrats Labour Party being part of most governments since 1919. But they have been voted out, something that makes them different than one-party communist states. Their parliament includes seats for communists (Left Party) and ex-fascists (Swedish Democrats).

Sweden had quality workmanship like Volvo and Husqvarna. And despite the very high taxes there are around 30 billionaires: tetrapak, H & M, Ikea. And Abba, combined, would be worth over a billion.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Surely there must he a "third way" between muderous Stalinism and unregulated destruction by out of control capitalism.

Capitalism: A system in which the rich use capital to gain an unfair, even evil, advantage over the 'not so rich' (besides bribing the government into making regulations which prevent the 'not so rich' from improving their status).
Democratic Socialism: A system in which the 'not so rich' use their strength in numbers to legally steal money from the rich, through government regulations.
Libertarianism: A system in which the only laws are those which protect people from unfair exploitation, and regulations do not prevent people from access to capital...

[Erik Malmsten]

Capitalism: A system in which the rich use capital to gain an unfair, even evil, advantage over the 'not so rich' (besides bribing the government into making regulations which prevent the 'not so rich' from improving their status).
Democratic Socialism: A system in which the 'not so rich' use their strength in numbers to legally steal money from the rich, through government regulations.
Libertarianism: A system in which the only laws are those which protect people from unfair exploitation, and regulations do not prevent people from access to capital...

Dilip, you left out "Communism."

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, you left out "Communism."

The less said about it the better...even on chesstalk, nobody wants it....

[Pargat Perrer]

Capitalism: A system in which the rich use capital to gain an unfair, even evil, advantage over the 'not so rich' (besides bribing the government into making regulations which prevent the 'not so rich' from improving their status).
Democratic Socialism: A system in which the 'not so rich' use their strength in numbers to legally steal money from the rich, through government regulations.
Libertarianism: A system in which the only laws are those which protect people from unfair exploitation, and regulations do not prevent people from access to capital...

A lot of "weasel words" in these definitions.

Under Capitalism, there is "unfair, even evil, advantage". When exactly does it become unfair? What makes it evil? Is it evil to award money (in the form of royalties, tax breaks etc) to those who are innovators and are contributing to society's progress? Then again, how do we define progress? Are smartphones in the hands of everyone, even children, a form of progress? Or could it contribute to societal breakdown and lead to Big Brother and a cashless society in which everyone is under total government control? All kinds of questions!

Under Democratic Socialism, we have "legally steal" money from the rich. But if it is the law of the land, how is it stealing? Especially if the Capitalism definition is saying the rich gained an "unfair" and even "evil" advantage?

Under Libertarianism, we have "unfair exploitation". What is that? What yardstick do we use to determine it? Then we have "access to capital". What exactly is that, and should we allow unfettered access to capital for those who want to do some kind of harm or damage, for example to the environment?

All of these isms don't change the lessons of history: civilizations rise, they peak, and they fall. It's a repetitive cycle that will go on as long as humans exist. No ism will stop it. And I believe Brad Thomson has it correct: America is in decline and that must continue, no matter Biden or Trump.