• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

America will never elect a socialist

 
 
 
ksen

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
Because the last time we had a socialist president we had to pass a constitutional amendment to stop voters from reelecting him.
 
ksen said:
Because the last time we had a socialist president we had to pass a constitutional amendment to stop voters from reelecting him.
Click to expand...

Only his death stopped FDR's re-election. If it had been possible to keep him alive, in his right mind and relatively healthy, people would still be voting him back into office even now at the age of 134.
 
It's an interesting thought, but FDR was favored by circumstance, more than his actual policies.

His public persona served him well. My parents grew up as Roosevelt children. They spoke of him in the same tone reserved for Washington, Lincoln, and Audie Murphy. I've had many conversations with old men whose memories of the depression were mostly about the feeling of hope Roosevelt brought. The public persona may have been a true representation of the man, but he aged out of it. He would have been better served by the people around him, if he could have been persuaded to decline a fourth term.
 
ksen said:
Because the last time we had a socialist president we had to pass a constitutional amendment to stop voters from reelecting him.
Click to expand...

You can elect a non socialist president but that does not mean he will not provide socialist measures and policies. Nowadays we have mixed economies and mixed politics.
 
Wasn't GW the last socialist president before Obama?

Medicare D is tainted with no ability to negotiate but if it wasn't socialism, what is socialism?
 
untermensche said:
Wasn't GW the last socialist president before Obama?

Medicare D is tainted with no ability to negotiate but if it wasn't socialism, what is socialism?
Click to expand...

If "socialist" means a lot of government social spending, he was definitely the most socialist ever before Obama. He also is one of the 4 people who have been prevented from running for president by the 22nd amendment. Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, and GW Bush, unless I've forgotten one. You can add Obama to those who can't run again but has technically not been prevented yet.

I'm just surprised ksen thinks the 22nd Amendment was required to keep GWB from winning a third term.

I'm also mystified by how ksen thinks it prevents us from electing some other socialist if we want to.
 
God is a communist. If Trump and Cruz are such good Christians, will they follow the Bible?


Acts 4
31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
 
untermensche said:
Wasn't GW the last socialist president before Obama?

Medicare D is tainted with no ability to negotiate but if it wasn't socialism, what is socialism?
Click to expand...

Yea, we've so dumbed down the definition of socialist, that just about every American politician in the US fits the current description.
 
ksen said:
Because the last time we had a socialist president we had to pass a constitutional amendment to stop voters from reelecting him.
Click to expand...

I thought socialism only and ever meant government ownership of the means of production and certainly not any sort of wealth redistribution.

At least that's what I was repeatedly told early in my experience discussing politics when I used the word "socialism" when I should have used the word "welfarism".

Is it ok to use the word "socialism" in place of "welfarism" when you mean it in a good way, but not ok if you mean it in a bad way? Interesting double standard.

FDR's actions were all actions that would make Keynes proud. And the best thing that can be said about Socialists is that at least they aren't Keynesians.
 
Wow, talk about reading into things.

Nothing in what I wrote suggested that socialists were libertarians. I simply wrote that they're better than Keynesians.

It takes a rather obsessive person to find libertarianism in that.

How about you address the actual point of that post.

Jason Harvestdancer said:
Is it ok to use the word "socialism" in place of "welfarism" when you mean it in a good way, but not ok if you mean it in a bad way? Interesting double standard.
Click to expand...
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Wow, talk about reading into things.

Nothing in what I wrote suggested that socialists were libertarians. I simply wrote that they're better than Keynesians.

It takes a rather obsessive person to find libertarianism in that.
Click to expand...
Of course it takes a rather obsessive or ignorant person to bring in Keynesians when the discussion is about socialism. No one said there was lalalandism libertarianism in your post. Perhaps you are responding to a different post.
Jason Harvestdancer said:
How about you address the actual point of that post.
Click to expand...
I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom