Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Democrats would walk, en masse, to a tiny little voting office in Alaska and stand in line for days in the freezing cold to vote crooked Trump out of office...

And vote illegally unless they live in that precinct. So what else is new?

You're the expert here, thanks.

I have to admit that I'm totally biased here as well, since more than 150 years of the Social Democratic Party in Germany also represents more 150 years of Germany history. And since - according to our constitution - we actually are a "social federal state".

That is an utterly false statement on the part of Baldimo, who is, in my experience, an expert on no subject. The constitution, in fact, takes no notice of political parties. Furthermore, the earliest attestation of the word socialism dates from 1832, two generations after the constitution of the United States was ratified.



Source at Marxists-dot-org

Marx was dismissive of social democrats, calling them "utopians." But Lenin realized that the proletariat could not take over the means of production, at least not in Russia, until there was an industrial state for them to take over. That was the origin of the NEP, the New Economic Policy.



Source at Wikipedia

After Fanny Kaplan shot Lenin in 1918, his health began to deteriorate. The Cheka was founded to protect the revolution, and Felix Dzerzhinsky was put in charge. However, they made no headway with Kaplan, who was shot without implicating anyone else. Lenin became obsessed with the idea that violence and terror were needed to protect the revolution. With his failing health, and his personal despair, Stalin was free to establish his power base. Stalin, of course, was happy with the idea of using violence and terror to protect the revolution, although, in fact, he used it to protect his own power. Communism as it has become known in the modern world has always been a cult of personality--Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are the most obvious examples.

The legacy of Lenin's New Economic Policy withered away under Stalin, except for the aircraft design bureaus. Tupolev, Sukhoi, Yakovlev, and of course, Mikoyan and Gurevich (MiG) designed the aircraft, but they did not produce them. This crippled quality control, but nevertheless, that vestige of Lenin's attempt to harness capitalism in service to the revolution meant that the Soviet Union had reliable aircraft, at least reliable aircraft design. Lenin's decline after 1922, however, meant that the New Economic Policy was never fully implemented, and it was the Soviet Union which suffered, and with the death of Lenin in 1924, Stalin was free to make himself the Red Tsar.

Once again, the American constitution takes no notice of political parties, and there is nothing in the constitution to prohibit either socialism or communism. Reactionaries in the United States love to shoot off their mouths about the constitution, but they reliably demonstrate a pathetic ignorance of the document.

It's actually a very accurate statement, the problem is you guys want to stick with the "academics" of communism and socialism but the practice of such politics ideologically isn't what takes place.


That is true but socialism and communism aren't political parties, they are political ideologies and they run counter to what our Constitution stands for. Personal property and the ability to own a business run counter to both of those ideologies. In socialism those things become owned by the "people" and the business owner is ass out. In communism it's the govt who owns the business.

And the FACT is the constitution does not deal with economic systems at all. Socialism is perfectly compatible with it since it makes absolutely no specifications about the subject. What you think the constitution stands for is purely opinion not what the constitution actually says,
And your alleged history of what socialism is is in no way accurate. And you are completely unaware of the varieties of what socialism is, and there are many. You are mwerely regurgitating the crap the right wing media has fed you over the years.

the whole capitalism=free enterprise-socialism-capitalism debate is a product of the 19th century and the industrial revolution. the founding fathers didn't deal with them because they did not even exist until decades after the constitution was written.

And your opinion is directly contrary to what ACTUALLY happens in social democracies, which are full of private businesses.

I suppose, I'm one of those "guys".

I'm a member of the SPD since decade, practise their politics and ideology, exactly where it takes place.
I only stick with the "academics" when explaining to that to someone, who has no idea about the practice of such politics and ideologies and how it takes place.

Our system is setup for maximum individual freedom, neither of those systems account for individual freedom, they are group ideologies and only work when the group is in charge.


Not it isn't compatible, you really think taking someone's business because they belong to the "people" is compatible with personal property rights? Wrong.

The Constitution is protection against mob rule, which is exactly what socialism is, and when it fails those despots move to communism to enforce their rule.


It's very acurate. The history of socialism and communism is pretty plain to see with over 100 million dead across the world. The last experiment for the world to see was Venezuela and it's massive failure, yet people like you and Set will insist that that wasn't socialism and no one has done it properly yet... it's the same tired and failed excuse that has been used for the last 20 years.


I don't care, it's a fail ideology that has been lied about by college professors and Bernie Sanders who want to lead the country into ruin.


No, that would you regurgitating what you have been told by the dumb leftists who don't understand what they really want. You seem to be able to defend the failure of socialism but can't root for the system we have. It's sad and pathetic and I can't wait for you old socialists to retire and stop lying to people about your failed ideology.

Why don't you actually read the constitution before you comment on it. Your're just puking up witless right-wing propaganda.

None of this is true. You obviously know nothing about the constitution. Try reading it some time.

I have read the constitution, it seems you haven't read it. Individual liberty was the corner stone of the Constitution, oh and a smaller govt. The FF were against mob rule/direct democracy, that's why we are a Representative Constitutional Republic. Everything passed by a vote must be balanced against the Constitution and if goes against the Constitution, then by it's very nature it is unconstitutional.

Our Bill of Rights protects the rights of the minority even if the majority wishes to violate them. That could be considered protection against mob rule.

Yeah, prove me wrong. But you won't because you can't.

Do us all a favor and read the constitution. Even you, with your limited skills, can read in less than an hour.

Test of the United States Constitution, from the National Archives.

Prove you wrong? Ha, you're the one making claims, it's up to you to prove that you are right. No one is obliged to prove that you are wrong.

The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.

As was written above:

It isn't proven that socialism represents mob rule. That's a witless assumption of ignorant reactionaries.

Obviously, you haven't.

The best example are e.g. the UK and the Scandinavian countries. (Although they are no republics but monarchies, if that's not too high for some.)