While they are now under investigation for campaign finance fraud as well as immigration fraud.
The Squad was against the USMCA, which Pelosi now supports. Tell me, what are all these policies the Squad has supported that they passed? There was no political suicide. Dems won the House in 2018 because the country supports Trump more than the Republican Establishment and because of the pendulum. President Trump has every advantage, and won in 2016 with every disadvantage. They were unlikely to win anyways. Pelosi is trying to keep her base energized without alienating the Centrists, Moderates and Independents.
Donât expect much. Breaking campaign finance laws happens by every campaign, usually accidentally. A small fine is the typical punishment. Itâs really not big deal, just as with Trump and Obama.
Do you see how you are reacting in a way that doesnât even make sense to what I said?
Pelousi is doing all she can to hang onto power as speaker and not lose it to this new generation of young radical socialists who would squander all of her political gains with one election.
The Squad pushed, dictated, and got the impeachment that Pelosi knew would be political suicide which is why she did everything to avoid it but AOC and her comrades threatened to split the party if she did not accede. She finally did.
They are also controlling the narrative and the platform the demâs running for the nomination are endorsing with everything from open borders and free health care for illegals to âtaxing the richâ into poverty in the name of social justice. Now they are talking reparations for illegals and particularly for the children of illegals separated from their parents at the border.
The lunatics are running the asylum and dictating the 2020 agenda.
Not in their cases. Outright fraud and illegally using campaign money for personal reasons.
Talks about reparations have been going on for decades. Guess what? They never happen. Donât confused trying to please part of the party with that part having total control. Make no mistake, the Liberals still control the Democratic Party over the Progressives. Why do you think Bernie Sanders has hit a cap? Warrenâs surge was because she brought in a bunch of Liberals, but when they found out how Progressive she was they left her. Biden and Buttigieg are Liberals and have been doing very well.
1 Like
If that were True Pelosi would not have pushed forward with impeachment knowing it would only harm their cause in the long run.
The socialist radicals have been dictating the agenda since 2018.
No where did I suggest that America doesnât change.
Imagine a big sqare, like a frame, which has boundaries. Inside the frame, change is acceptable and has occurred since the beginning. Fundamentally, everything that exists has a framework. Displacing Capitalism with Socialism is not acceptable. Accepting Socialist concepts to apply to Capitalist means has transpired. Many can legitimately argue against the benefits of Socialist applications to capitalist endeavors.
My statement regarding a framework does not contest your argument. In fact, your argument is an attempt to frame my original statement differently than what I said. Typical leftist maneuver, whether intentional or through ignorance.
Furthermore, your statement about how great the New Deal was is ambitious, and I say that to be nice. Out of respect for your claim of New Deal greatness, I did research. The consensus is that WWII got us out of the Depression, the New Deal likely prolonged the depression, and in an attempt to right his wrongs, on his death bed FDR tried to launch a New Deal II that was quickly discarded because the original program was an abysmal failure in a numberof ways economically.
Google, one of the most left leaning search engines imaginable returns the following:
Granted, there were some short term positive results, but will programs like Social Security be seen as successful within 50 years? How did Fannie fare in 2008?
So, your bias is clear and your âfactsâ, not so much.
God bless America for having a President whoâs not a lawyer.
2 Likes
-
Tell me where in the Constitution it says we canât implement Socialism. We totally can. Implementing Socialism doesnât go against the Constitution whatsoever. Iâm against Socialism, but your argument is without basis.
-
I take issue when you mention implementing Socialist concepts. Socialism does not have a monopoly on creating welfare programs. Capitalism can do it, too. Right now we have programs for food, for instance, and those programs completely operate within the bounds of Capitalism. The Invisible Hand even plays a big role and poor people get to make decisions about products based on what they like most. This helps drives the cost of those products. Thatâs completely Capitalist. Socialism would have a price control that would set the price no matter how many people are buying the products, and theyâd be much more likely to just hand out food. Quite literally, food bank charities are closer to Socialist policies than food welfare programs.
-
For someone who had to do research on the New Deal, claiming consensus is on your side raises an eyebrow. Injecting jobs through government spending is a great way to bring the economy out of a depression. The biggest problem in a depression is that people canât find jobs to get money to spend money. When the government spends money, that creates jobs, people take those jobs, people spend the money they make from those jobs, more businesses can open up, and itâs a positive cycle.
Of course, you canât run an economy long-term on government spending. It gets too costly. But in the short-term, it can help a lot. I would also point to the Bush-era and Obama-era bailouts, which helped rejuvinate our economy during the Great Recession. Itâs another way to do the same thing. The government kept banks alive so that they could lend money. Without bank lending, you can kiss the economy goodbye.
It is generally accepted that government intervention tends to slow down the recovery, but thatâs because it eases the pain of the crash on the people. I think this is more about smaller recessions, though. A recession is just economic reduction for two straight quarters. The government shouldnât get involved in those cases, because we want the markets to clean themselves out. But when the big one hits, the economy can go into a downward spiral that it canât get out of without help.
Read your bill of rights.
Socialism would violate about half of them, particularly those dealing with private property.
Read your bill of rights.
Socialism would violate about half of them, particularly those dealing with private property.
Iâve read it. What specifically? I see you edited to add property, but one can have property under Socialism. Thatâs also not even what the contention initially was, because the initial contention was about principles of Socialism, such as helping the poor. Thereâs nothing in the Constitution that says welfare programs are unconstitutional. Socialism allows for private property, btw.
Socialism ends property rights.
Read the âtaxing and spending clauseâ. The areas for legitimate federal spending are clearly laid out, itâs one long sentence with semi colons.
It doesnât have a âwhatever else you wantâ at the end.
It depends on the implementation of the form of Socialism, but I will concede that many forms of Socialism donât allow for private property. The Fifth Amendment, which is mostly what protects private property rights, allows for people to have their land taken by the government for public use btw. See, part of the problem is when you guys who are so ideological like something, you give it a pass, but when you donât like something, then you call it Socialist. Thatâs just word-thinking.
And still, private property was not the context of the conversation, which was about welfare programs that Democrats are pushing. He was saying things like Medicare-for-All arenât allowed by the Constitution because they are based on Socialist principles, but they totally are.
Your land can only be taken for public use through due process and only after you have been compensated for it.
No, the âmedicare for allâ being proposed eliminates the private option which clearly violates our rights.
Exactly, but it can be taken.
Only in exchange and only through due process of law.
You exchange property for money which allows you to then buy more property if you choose.
Theoretically, there is a world in which the government could label all land for public use and pay all private owners for it. You know when people call Singapore the most Capitalist nation in the world? Thatâs basically what Singapore did. People donât own their own homes in Singapore. Over 90% of the land in Singapore is owned by the government. In the USA, there vast amounts of land that are labeled public land for parks/reserves. The Constitutional amendments do offer some private land protection, but it more lays out how you lose it than anything, and the Constitution grants specific power to take peopleâs private land. Thatâs not exactly anti-Socialist. And this is the best you could come up with about why the Constitution doesnât allow for Socialism.
Not possible under our constitution.
You are also of course misrepresenting land ownership in Singapore.