Progressives (Liberals)

Oh. So all the differences are just different names? I mean, I am a member of the Social Democratic - so I'm actually a Socialist, a Communist, a Marxist-Leninist?

If you believe in "collective" liberty over individual liberty, then yes, they are all the same. I listed a couple of different things about socialism, like taking business's away from the people who started them and land reforms, just to name two of them. Am I wrong in those instances? You want to dither over which end of the **** sandwich you want to eat?

Land reform historically came when land had been taken by force of arms as in theo rhe case of a nobility versus peass

antry or inn the expansion of europeas imperialism when it was simply taken. The english Rnclosure Acts pushed smallholders off their land. There are many ways the rich and powerful took over all land for their own benefit to the detriment of the people there. Land reform. Shifts the balance of power from powerful elites back to the common and redresses historic wrongs. Hereditary nobility colonialism and imperialism lose their undeserved privilege. The modern world thinks thats a good thing.

What's the point of being the winner if what your party stands for becomes what the opposition party stands for. (Is it really winning?) Blaming Reagan for the Democratic cave-in is just an excuse for failure. Excusing Clinton and Obama for governing like Republicans because they had to win is the most pitiful whine I ever witnessed. If Democrats had stayed connected with the people they might not have lost virtually everything to the right-wing.

Obviously I live in a Communist/Socialist country since our constitution limits individual freedom when it interferes with the liberty of others.

I'm not sure about how many businesses have been away from the people who started them, but I do know about the land reform (we call it "Flurbereinigung", land consolidation), which was started by the Adenauer government in 1953.

How do you think this is going to work with the Constitution still in place? You can't vote by 51% to take property from someone.

Land reform takes place in developing countries. What do you think is happening in the US?

a brief intermission - My great-grandson, Zeppelin, was born this day. - Back to the fray.

It's what will take place. Land reform is a favorite of the socialists, so is taking away a business, neither of which is compatible with the US Constitution. Socialism always ends the same way, misery, starvation and death.

Congratulations on the new addition to the family.

I don't think that Socialism in the late Middle Ages and early modern time was starting the land reforms in Europe. But I'm ready to be taught by you otherwise.

The Middle Ages, is that the defense by the socialists now? They ignore what has taken place in modern day socialism and try to point at ancient history.

That has nothing to with a defence of anything.

But in our recent history, after the Second World War, the Allies started land reform on German territory in order to exert political influence by dividing large land holdings between large landowners, who were held responsible for the success of National Socialism.
This happened in the US-Zone from from September 19, 1946 onwards.(Law on the acquisition of land for settlement and on land reform, primarily with the social objective of integrating displaced persons and refugees.)
The Germans didn't like it and tried not follow. But under pressure from the US military government, on 18 November 1947 the "Länderrat" (parliamentary body representing the three states in the American zone) adopted a law to accelerate the implementation of land reform.

Bernie in Kentucky

https://twitter.com/i/status/1165721195238608901

Congratulations

Obama didn't govern like a republican and you stretch the truth when you claim it. He may not have gotten everything thing he wanted and he may have compromised in the beginning before he figured out there was no working with the other side, but he didn't govern like a republican. Moreover, the opposition was a real plan they planned on the night of the inauguration to Obama a one time President and take back the house and the senate. They were completely focused. McConnell has been focused on getting right wing judges. Those are facts, not excuses.

Roger Draper book details how in 2009 senior Republican figures planned a campaign to bring Washington to a standstill

That’s a cool little moniker for the little man! Very happy mommy and son are faring well!

Zeppelin Austin __


Thanks, people.

I say goddamn!

Bernie and Warren lead Joe. Appears that Joe must indeed go.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/26/politics/monmouth-august-democrats-biden-warren-sanders/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

(CNN) Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden top the Democratic field for president in 2020, with no clear leader, according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday.

The three candidates are bunched together, each receiving about the same amount of support (Sanders 20%, Warren 20% and Biden 19%) from registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters.

They're followed by California Sen. Kamala Harris (8%), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (4%), South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (4%), businessman Andrew Yang (3%), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro (2%), former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (2%) and author Marianne Williamson (2%). All other candidates received 1% or less in the poll.

By the way—anybody in an open primary state, please go vote for whoever this guy is running against Trump. I mean—he couldn’t possibly be worse, could he?