If 'Congress Shall Make No Law…' Why Can Governors?

[sl1pstream 551]

52 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Well, I spent a few nights on the couches of socialists, so I know more about socialism than y'all do.  And it really works, believe me.  That's why so many dems are now emigrating to Venezuela, where the government can take better care of them.

Ah yes, Venezuela. Let's just forget about the authoritarian regime and the US sanctions that led to what's happening in that country today, to make a dump point.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

21 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Ah yes, Venezuela. Let's just forget about the authoritarian regime and the US sanctions that led to what's happening in that country today, to make a dump point.

Basically its Bush's fault

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

21 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Ah yes, Venezuela. Let's just forget about the authoritarian regime and the US sanctions that led to what's happening in that country today, to make a dump point.

Ok, Cuba then. Or Israel, India, or the UK.  You choose.

[sl1pstream 551]

9 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Ok, Cuba then. Or Israel, India, or the UK.  You choose.

The US put sanctions on Cuba and Cuba was also a dictatorship, and even if you're going to ignore that, communism isn't the same as democratic socialism.

Israel and India are both run by what are essentially dictators, but they have elections and multiple parties and the UK also has a multi-party system so I don't even know how you're getting to communism on that one. Are you just naming countries, hoping to finally get one right?

Edited May 4, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Dashinka 24,628]

20 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

The US put sanctions on Cuba and Cuba was also a dictatorship, and even if you're going to ignore that, communism isn't the same as democratic socialism.

Israel and India are both run by what are essentially dictators, but they have elections and multiple parties and the UK also has a multi-party system so I don't even know how you're getting to communism on that one. Are you just naming countries, hoping to finally get one right?

And Democratic Socialism is not the same as Social Democracies.

[OriZ 3,157]

36 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Ok, Cuba then. Or Israel, India, or the UK.  You choose.

Israel has universal health care but it's nowhere near as socialist as you'd think. In many ways, the current US regime is more socialist than the one in Israel. Nobody there is sending the general public checks right now.

Edited May 4, 2020 by OriZ

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

33 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

The US put sanctions on Cuba and Cuba was also a dictatorship, and even if you're going to ignore that, communism isn't the same as democratic socialism.

Israel and India are both run by what are essentially dictators, but they have elections and multiple parties and the UK also has a multi-party system so I don't even know how you're getting to communism on that one. Are you just naming countries, hoping to finally get one right?

Those three countries I listed other than Cuba were at one time socialist.  Notice how none of them are any longer?  I wonder why?

[laylalex 7,293]

The UK has never had a socialist form of government. I don't know where you got that from. There were certainly times when socialistic programs have been implemented, and there was government ownership of particular industries (the railways, utilities, to name a couple), but if the UK had truly been socialist, why were the means of production never returned to the people? Even in the 1970s, private industry was still very much a thing. Privatization wasn't such a walk in the park for them either. In some industries it worked and in others (hello railways) it has not been a rousing success.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

16 minutes ago, laylalex said:

The UK has never had a socialist form of government. I don't know where you got that from. There were certainly times when socialistic programs have been implemented, and there was government ownership of particular industries (the railways, utilities, to name a couple), but if the UK had truly been socialist, why were the means of production never returned to the people? Even in the 1970s, private industry was still very much a thing. Privatization wasn't such a walk in the park for them either. In some industries it worked and in others (hello railways) it has not been a rousing success.

Perhaps it's your youth, but have you never heard of the Socialist Party of Great Britian?  Or the Socialist League of William Morris prior to that?

[TBoneTX 45,571]

6 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

the separation of church and state is in the constitution

Cite where, please.

8 hours ago, Dashinka said:

what if the MI governor eliminated the 4th amendment and also decided to confiscate weapons?

What, she forgot about this?!  Quick -- what's her e-mail address?

[laylalex 7,293]

20 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Perhaps it's your youth, but have you never heard of the Socialist Party of Great Britian?  Or the Socialist League of William Morris prior to that?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how policies were actually put into place. Nor has the Socialist Party ever had any control of government in the UK. The Labour Party has at times embraced socialist policies and programs but no, the UK has never been socialist. You need only look at the many, many private businesses that have remained that way from their 18th and 19th century beginnings. Also, can you truly imagine a socialist country with a hereditary chamber??? The hereditary House of Lords may have been replaced with an appointed chamber during a Labour government but that government was quite capitalist. And the appointed Lords come as often as not from private industry. 

 

Also, as an art history major, I am quite familiar with William Morris, both in terms of his art and his political (and other) writings. But he never was in a position to dictate policy. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Poor William.  He gonna be butt hurt if he ever finds out his movement and country weren't REALLY socialist!!

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

5 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

The US put sanctions on Cuba and Cuba was also a dictatorship, and even if you're going to ignore that, communism isn't the same as democratic socialism.

Israel and India are both run by what are essentially dictators, but they have elections and multiple parties and the UK also has a multi-party system so I don't even know how you're getting to communism on that one. Are you just naming countries, hoping to finally get one right?

Alex I will have Democratic Socialism for 20 please 

[laylalex 7,293]

17 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Poor William.  He gonna be butt hurt if he ever finds out his movement and country weren't REALLY socialist!!

How does the presence of socialists and socialist parties/movements in the UK change the fact that the UK has never been a socialist country? I mean, by that metric the US is a socialist country because there are organized socialists who live here.

 

Arguably Attlee oversaw the most "socialist" government (establishment of the NHS, the nationalization of industries and utilities as I mentioned before, etc.) and still he presided over a decidedly and demonstrably mixed economy.

 

Sorry, Voldy's degree was in politics and economics so I have learned about this area through osmosis by helping him revise work. It remains a minor interest of mine.  

[OriZ 3,157]

11 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Those three countries I listed other than Cuba were at one time socialist.  Notice how none of them are any longer?  I wonder why?

Okay, nice save...