Biden 2020

[The Lamb]

Dman, i hate that i am going to do this, but i guess it could be argued that expression is speech, so i could see where it COULD fall under the 1st, however, with that being said... Blue, no where in the first amendment does it say anyone has to believe what anyone else is saying I am free to say im a toaster, it doesn't obligate you to call me General Electric.

Also, blue, we already know that you have issues with knowing forms of governments and economics so im going to give you as slide. Capitalism isnt the problem. You see capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system, while socialism/communism has done more to bring more people down to object poverty

The proof is in Baltimore.

For someone who wants everyone to have an open mind, i have yet to hear you, with all the information you have been given, change one opinion. Maybe you just dont want to see, and thats fine, but atleast you know

Actually, I have changed opinions. I used to have a much different opinion on riots. I try to keep an open mind as much as possible, and with that open mind I found my current opinions. That means that all things considered I still believe what I do. What I don't understand is how socialism and communism could bring poverty. Sure, they don't bring wealth, but they don't bring poverty either. Its against their nature. There really is not much money to have in that kind of system, and everyone is more or less economically equal. Now I still believe that we have never seen either, but I guess that just depends on what you count as communism/socialism.

As for the freedom of expression thing, I guess I wasn't really thinking about it how you guys are. I mean it's a constitutional freedom to be able to wave a blm or a Trump flag around, and that ain't religion or speech. I guess expression could be counted as an extension of speech. As long as it's in a non-violent way, it's legal.

To simplify why socialism brings all but those in charge to poverty and here is why. On paper, you take all the goods that have been allocated by who ever wrote the paper and distribute everything equally and all is well. In reality, there are only so many goods to go around. Only so many trees, only so many cows, only so many people paying taxes. You take real world (meaning you can't just invent infinite goods, workers and capitol like in the paper), and try to fairly distribute all goods equitably, then you add in what Mel said, and what you have a is a few very bottom people being elevated, bu the rest of the population must be lowered to meet the rationed supply.

The reason people have been saying no one has ever done it right since the sixties, is on paper, with infinite resources, and with a fake population that only wants to live together and work in harmony, admittedly socialism looks fantastic and it does look like the answer. The sad thing is that with finite resources, and human nature, all those socialist states that have ended in pure communism or a dictator actually did it right, its just the inevitable result needed to control means of production, resources and population until it goes bankrupt.

[Meliva]

Now i admit i am not a big Star Trek fan, but I recall hearing that the federation is essentially a socialist/communist government and things work out fairly well for them- though a big reason why that is, is due to the fact that they literally have tech that can make anything you want. So until we get some super amazing technology that allows us infinite resources, socialism is destined to fail. Even WITH infinite resources, however, it still would be a poor idea, since as I mentioned before- why bother trying to excel in life if you will ALWAYS be at the same level as everyone else. Why study several years to become a doctor, or engineer, or some other high end job if you won't be any better off had you just taken a job at some fast food place?

So even WITH magical infinite resources, eventually all of society will be filled with tons of workers doing bottom of the barrel jobs, and very few to no one doing high end jobs like engineering, doctors, etc. So eventually that society, would also collapse. Unless, they decide to FORCE some people to do the work to get high end jobs, which is tyrannical and is plain evil.

Do you see why Socialism/communism just simply can not work blue? Economic equality is just a bad idea.

[Leo]

I see why you think that, but who knows? It's never truly been done, so it's hard to say.

[Meliva]

I see why you think that, but who knows? It's never truly been done, so it's hard to say.

Anyone with common sense can see that it won't work. There is no way folks would be willing to spend LITERAL YEARS of their life, studying medicine, or engineering if once they get the job they will be at the same economic level as some teenage kid working in the drive through. Granted maybe a few kind hearted folks would still go through with it out of necessity, but no way in hell would there be enough to actually meet with the demands.

It's not a hard thing to say at all. You literally just need to think for a few minutes and ask some very simple questions. Would enough people be willing to spend YEARS of their lives learning to be doctors and engineers to keep up with demand, or would there be a lack of folks who can do those jobs? Because let me tell what's gonna happen if a nation doesn't have enough doctors, engineers and other high end jobs. It will collapse. People will die from sickness if they can't get a doctor, without engineers and other architects new buildings probably won't happen, infrastructure will suffer, etc.

Socialism is a bad idea. You can't just FORCE people to be equal economically. Doing so will just end in disaster.

[Dmanwuzhere]

you can try socialism in the usa....
if you want a civil war

socialism ignores incentives and by nature humans love incentives

trying socialism here is incentive enough to bear arms ... bet ya

[Leo]

Hey, hey, I'm not even for all-out socialism. I believe in America, but part of believing in it means fixing things up. I do like some aspects of socialism, many in fact. For instance, I would like it better if everyone still had the great opportunities of America, but there was a minimum and maximum amount of wealth that could be had. For instance, if someone didn't have a job and had no source of income, they could still at least get a cheap apartment and weekly food deliveries paid for by the government. And then if someone were to cross over the say, $5B mark, their tax would become so high that their bank account would stop growing. This would pay for the apartments and food of the people I just mentioned. This way, no one would be homeless.

[Meliva]

Hey, hey, I'm not even for all-out socialism. I believe in America, but part of believing in it means fixing things up. I do like some aspects of socialism, many in fact. For instance, I would like it better if everyone still had the great opportunities of America, but there was a minimum and maximum amount of wealth that could be had. For instance, if someone didn't have a job and had no source of income, they could still at least get a cheap apartment and weekly food deliveries paid for by the government. And then if someone were to cross over the say, $5B mark, their tax would become so high that their bank account would stop growing. This would pay for the apartments and food of the people I just mentioned. This way, no one would be homeless.

So what happens if millions of people, decide, "oh hey, if I don't have a job, and just wanna be a lazy bum, the government will pay for my home, AND give me food?"

And what happens when those folks who are over that 5B mark, decide "Well shoot, I sure as hell won't let them take away my hard earned wealth just to give it to folks who don't wanna work" and then they proceed to move their businesses, wealth, and property to other countries?

You can't force folks to help others. Nor should you make it to where folks can get by without any work. That's how you get bums who take advantage of the system. Ever hear of that old saying give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish he eats for llfe? Well you are essentially saying you want to force folks to constantly GIVE to anyone who doesn't have a job, rather then HELP them get a job so they can provide for themselves.

That logic is idiotic and backwards. Handouts don't make folks lives better-they make them dependent on the handouts to survive.

[Leo]

I mean, the government would only provide the bear minimum, and would still encourage people to get a job, grow rich, etc. I will have you know that wealth is rarely "hard earned", rather someone had a lucky start-up idea, or just inherited the money from a rich relative. There are some cases where the money is hard earned, but still not proportionally. It's not like the harder you work, the more money you get. If that was true then I would be a billionaire from working at McDonald's

Seriously though, the government wouldn't pay you, but just provide a place to live and some food so that you don't starve or freeze to death.

[Leo]

And, to answer your question, there would be nothing to stop people from being lazy. But really, who cares? If they want to waste their lives sitting on their asses spending away government money, then they should be aloud to do that. But would they really want to?

By the way, the Trump uses enough taxpayer dollars each WEEK to pay 3,000 people's monthly rent in a moderately priced apartment. I don't see him working his ass off, yet all of his purchases come from you and other citizens' wallets, not his own. Just like to point that out.

[Meliva]

this is by far the one of the things I hate the most about socialists like you. It's really bloody easy for you to say who cares that some people would waste money, when it's not your money.

And no, people should NOT be allowed to sit on their asses doing nothing and having other people pay for them. The only exception to that being children who should have parents or family taking care of them( and even then they should be getting educated not just doing nothing) and folks with severe mental or physical disabilties who simply can not take care of themselves.

But if you're a grown arse adult, with no mental or physical disabilities, you should not be allowed to simply do nothing and have other people take care of you. Get off your arse, get a job, and contribute to society.

It also does not matter how one earned their money-whether it was dumb luck, inheritance or whatever, so long as it was obtained legally, then it's their money. No one should be allowed to take that and give it to someone else.

As for trump and his spending, just about every president profits off the presidency. I might not like how he spends it, but I'd much rather taxes go to a person holding a job and working then go to some bum who wants to live an easy life.