Jim Carrey: 'We Have to Say Yes to Socialism'

[ElNono]

Its not just the example, Dems have all media thats why Barrack was so great for them everything was perfect just like the Ks had 10 channels radios and papers here, Hilda got money from those countries that kills gays and lesbians just like the Kirchners had money from Chavez.
Chavez did the same with media.

Now media is all day bashing Trump like he is a criminal not one thing is right about him, and he is doing great with economy.
Macri is being bashed all day long, economy is not great but you see the blind hate everything sucks.
Maduro is not being bashed at all.

Open borders are great to get votes and then do whatever they like, just like Hilda was against little children crossing the border and now POOR BABIES!!!
Same Schumer and all those clowns.
Why they changed their minds so fast?

USA is full of corruption too, the FBI is a fine example.

That country needs to keep better and better with closed borders, and then decide if they want to go socialist.
But not in the middle of illegals, crazy forced racism, one sided fbi, wacko clowns like Jim Carrey and all that freak show Dems are doing.

If you want something clean and transparent first you must have a good foundation, thats not USA case right now.

The media narrative should be dead and buried at this point, with the fact that Trump is indeed the president, and Republicans haven't had more control of government in decades, tbh...

If media's mission was to boycott a certain party, they've been an abject failure at that. At this point, it's just a silly schtick to play the victim card.

The US foundation is fine. This is democracy, you get the swings and half the populous is happy, half is not. In that sense, democracy is working.

The rentier system is also alive and well, same with cut-throat capitalism. For a lot of the ing we hear every day, the more the swamp changes, the more it stays the same.

[Winehole23]

yeah, what ElNono said

[ElNono]

The idea that you automatically like Shillary if you don't like Trump is a complete deceit, even logically. If you were to tell me 100% of the electorate voted and Trump won, you could argue that point.

But there was a major part of the electorate that didn't like either and didn't vote at all. That group can certainly dislike both, and there's nothing illogical about that.

[Mikeanaro]

I´ve seen your posts and all of them lean to the left, any objective/independent person would never try to forget HRC or pull her ¨Dont name her¨ card.
Also independents would never defend the establishment and people who has been 30 years doing nothing except getting richer.

You dont have to prove anything anyway, as long you are not an asshole like Chumplov Im cool.

[Winehole23]

if only the people who don't vote could find someone to vote for...is it weird to think the non-voters are the swing voters par excellence?

I mean, if they ever voted en masse?

[ElNono]

Back to the topic at hand, I can certainly understand if some people don't like certain type of extreme socialism (extremes are bad and certainly not exclusive to socialism. Communism is an extreme).

However, the notion it's somehow a bad word is downright ridiculous, considering the bastion of capitalism has had the necessity to use different small strokes of socialism over it's whole existence.

[Winehole23]

if there was ever someone who could make them care enough to vote?

[Winehole23]

Back to the topic at hand, I can certainly understand if some people don't like certain type of extreme socialism (extremes are bad and certainly not exclusive to socialism. Communism is an extreme).

However, the notion it's somehow a bad word is downright ridiculous, considering the bastion of capitalism has had the necessity to use different small strokes of socialism over it's whole existence.

people pretend it's a novelty. it isn't.

for better and for worse...

[ElNono]

if there was ever someone who could make them care enough to vote?

Primaries, selection process, party politics... a whole 'nother can of worms

[Mikeanaro]

The media narrative should be dead and buried at this point, with the fact that Trump is indeed the president, and Republicans haven't had more control of government in decades, tbh...

If media's mission was to boycott a certain party, they've been an abject failure at that. At this point, it's just a silly schtick to play the victim card.

The US foundation is fine. This is democracy, you get the swings and half the populous is happy, half is not. In that sense, democracy is working.

The rentier system is also alive and well, same with cut-throat capitalism. For a lot of the ing we hear every day, the more the swamp changes, the more it stays the same.

While I agree with most of this post, I dont remember society being so ing sensitive like if somebody fingered their holes and that makes everything worse.
ing millennials and extreme left are borderline nazi, you cant have a different opinion, you cant.

Maybe in the old days there was no twitter FB Insta , and now media uses those ammunitions to bust balls.

[Winehole23]

voter caging, Crosscheck, voter ID laws, gerrymandering... the pols pick the voters, not the other way around,.

[Winehole23]

While I agree with most of this post, I dont remember society being so ing sensitive like if somebody fingered their holes and that makes everything worse.
ing millennials and extreme left are borderline nazi, you cant have a different opinion, you cant.

Maybe in the old days there was no twitter FB Insta , and now media uses those ammunitions to bust balls.

rotflmao

[Blake]

Mixed socialism since and ever since. Got it.

Next stop: communism!

Per Chris.

[hater]

Im ok with socialism tbqh

Tulsi/Ocassio 2020 Im onthe wagon

[boutons_deux]

America has been deeply socialist and is even more so now that the oligarchy dominates.

taxes are "confiscated" from non-oligarchy to "pay for" tax cuts, subsidies, gifts for the oligarchy.

The oligarchy stole 4M homes in their Banksters Great Depression, no oligarch went to jail, but Ms went to landlords, to living in their cars, on the streets.

Blatant FORCED CONFISCATORY redistribution of wealth upwards.

[DMC]

Socialism is a range of both economic and social theories. You could create a form of government solely based on that, much like you could create a form of government based solely on capitalism.

In reality the world borrows from each where it makes sense, even if one of the systems is heavily favored over the other. They can both clearly coexist under democracies or any other form of government.

That's why demonizing the word socialism makes no sense. Almost every area of government that's either revenue neutral or a revenue loser runs some form of socialism, due to a higher mission (national security, social programs, law enforcement, etc).

But borrowing from it doesn't recreate it just as Jujitsu borrows from Judo but isn't Judo. If you were going on about how great Jujitsu is and said "we need to stop demonizing Judo", you'd be barking up the wrong tree. Judo is great but there's a reason Jujitsu is a prominent combat form while Judo is mostly for exhibition.

Socialism in its pure form simply doesn't work because it involves humans. Socialist aspects of governments work because they don't completely snuff out individual responsibility. We could go further and say that the right to fail and suffer because of it encourages growth while an eternal safety net of socialism leads to stagnation. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Pointing out elements of our government that rely on socialist principles to operate (bailing out big businesses, for example) doesn't lend any credence to the viability of socialism. It only says it's being used.

[DMC]

Don't take it personally, I was just pointing out that it's fairly common for Americans to see things through individualism, because that's what's ingrained in them.

The example you put together was actually a text-book case. From an individualist optic, if there's a pie for 10 people, adding an 11th person is a (personal) affront. That 11th person might be a cook that can make pies for everybody, but the first instinct is to think about it in terms of me and mine.

I'm not going to berate anybody for thinking in those terms, but that line of thinking is closer to dogma, and in that sense, it makes it more difficult to have an expansive view of the problems and solutions.

The other side of that coin is that there's 111 people and none of the new people can make anything because they are unskilled labor. Now you have no one eating because there's not enough food. Then a country with individualism as an ideal has its borders encroached upon and violated because no one wants to starve, when all the political and ideological dust settles.

[djohn2oo8]

We have come to the point where Chris is triggered by Jim Carrey

[Blake]

We have come to the point where Chris is triggered by Jim Carrey

[ElNono]

But borrowing from it doesn't recreate it just as Jujitsu borrows from Judo but isn't Judo. If you were going on about how great Jujitsu is and said "we need to stop demonizing Judo", you'd be barking up the wrong tree. Judo is great but there's a reason Jujitsu is a prominent combat form while Judo is mostly for exhibition.

Socialism in its pure form simply doesn't work because it involves humans. Socialist aspects of governments work because they don't completely snuff out individual responsibility. We could go further and say that the right to fail and suffer because of it encourages growth while an eternal safety net of socialism leads to stagnation. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Pointing out elements of our government that rely on socialist principles to operate (bailing out big businesses, for example) doesn't lend any credence to the viability of socialism. It only says it's being used.

It does, however, points that capitalism can’t stand on its own two feet and cover all our goals either. In that sense, turning the argument around works just as well. The ‘viability of capitalism’ as the lone guide to government fails on some (pretty important) areas. And that actually isn’t just fine, it makes complete sense. In the real world, complex problems require complex solutions, and normally more than just a single tool.

While it’s easy to point to Russia as a case of communist failure, it’s also just as easy to point to China as a country that has grown tremendously, and it’s not even a democracy. Ironically, China did it without allowing their people enjoy the spoils of that growth, until relatively recently.

I would tend to agree that capitalism should take precedence if it’s viable to a given context. However, there’s nothing evil or bad about a Socialism. It’s just one more tool in the toolbox, and applied to a given context is a perfectly viable solution.

[baseline bum]

Dems have all media

far right Clear Channel controls radio
far right Sinclair controls a ton of local stations
far right Fox News is the #1 cable news network

[ElNono]

The other side of that coin is that there's 111 people and none of the new people can make anything because they are unskilled labor. Now you have no one eating because there's not enough food. Then a country with individualism as an ideal has its borders encroached upon and violated because no one wants to starve, when all the political and ideological dust settles.

The logical step for those 111 people is keep adding people until they can all build a community and all get fed (the non individualistic optic). Or get tired of waiting and flee somewhere else (individualistic). IMO, there’s no right or wrong, they’re decisions made every day by people from all walks of life.

[DMC]

It does, however, points that capitalism can’t stand on its own two feet and cover all our goals either. In that sense, turning the argument around works just as well. The ‘viability of capitalism’ as the lone guide to government fails on some (pretty important) areas. And that actually isn’t just fine, it makes complete sense. In the real world, complex problems require complex solutions, and normally more than just a single tool.

While it’s easy to point to Russia as a case of communist failure, it’s also just as easy to point to China as a country that has grown tremendously, and it’s not even a democracy. Ironically, China did it without allowing their people enjoy the spoils of that growth, until relatively recently.

I would tend to agree that capitalism should take precedence if it’s viable to a given context. However, there’s nothing evil or bad about a Socialism. It’s just one more tool in the toolbox, and applied to a given context is a perfectly viable solution.

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.

[Fabbs]

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.

What if I want to have pie on the beach?
What if the entire group wants to have pie?

[Blake]

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.

No, those people can't decide as to who gets to use the public beach. They only can make rules as to when and how it is to be used based on the desires of the public as a whole.

The good thing for you not being the sole owner is that you don't have to pick up other people's beer cans