When India was actually mostly socialist, it was poor. When it introduced market-based capitalism, but retained its social safety nets ... you know ... became "democratic socialist" ... its wealth inequality skyrocketed, even as it became an economic power. So, we're going to reduce our wealth inequality by becoming poorer?
DSA Myths
- Thread starter tigres88
- Start date
When India was actually mostly socialist, it was poor. When it introduced market-based capitalism, but retained its social safety nets ... you know ... became "democratic socialist" ... its wealth inequality skyrocketed, even as it became an economic power. So, we're going to reduce our wealth inequality by becoming poorer?
why was it poor Moogy?
did it have anything to do with the colonialism it was under?
you are so close, but its like you brain is breaking when it has to hold more than one thing at a time in it.
Votes for Trump and for Bernie were "protest votes." Your suggestion is that we protest the establishment and the moderates by voting for other extremists. Agreed ... let's stop the protest votes and vote for the most qualified moderate candidate.
Couple of things.
1. People are less inclined to admit their mistakes when people act like an as.s when they do.
2. I've never hidden the fact that I think of zionism with as much scorn as christian nationalists
3. I have no opportunity to vote for a DSA candidate so I have little incentive to google the party platform.
4. Thanks, I expect you to keep voting based on issues that don't affect you at all.
There's no guarantee the DSA will flame out. And it doesn't matter, I can't vote for anyone in line with the DSA.
We saw their candidate in WI get beat ... barely. It's enough of a whackadoodle extremist ideology that it should scare everyone that it got that close, this early in its "uprising," to being represented in a major party candidate in a general election for the leader of an entire State.
MAGA was awful because it fed off hate, and because its leader was a megalomaniac who disregarded our Constitution and abused our form of government. But, theoretically, if it could have arisen based more on the substance of its suggested reforms (even if you didn't agree with them), and with someone who wasn't a psychotic felon hell bent on doing whatever he wanted, it would have at least been operating within the confines of our system of governance, supporting our economic system.
DSA, on the other hand, is a wholesale destruction of our government and economy, and a restructuring into a communist/socialist hellscape. On its face it's far more destructive and worrisome.
I get it, it's much easier to be ignorant than actually understand what you're voting for. You're posts said it all, when you claimed you knew the DSA platform. Just remember, Don't Look Up.
No one is asking you to vote for a candidate in line with the DSA. Some of us think it's foolish to refuse to vote for any Democrat simply because they aren't loudly disavowing the DSA.
They don't have to be loud, they just need to state they are not part of the DSA and disagree of the move to Socialism.
This makes no sense. If it's a fringe movement that is so extreme ... yet is somehow being tied into what these alleged non-DSA progressives are promoting ... it should be EASY for these progressives to separate themselves from the DSA and publicly disavow the movement ... we shouldn't sit here supporting the ones who DON'T publicly disavow the movement ... especially when the actual intermingling of interests and promotions are far deeper than you seemingly want to acknowledge.
Again, it was "choo choo, mothereffers ... here we come ... the progressives are taking over, and you feckless old-head establishment moderate corporatist boomers better get on board or get out of the way, because we're running your arses over ... just look at all these progressives we have making noise ... Mamdani, Al Sayed, Hong, all these other DSA-endorsed candidates ..."
Then, suddenly, when everyone realized what the DSA stood for, and saw, concretely, just what its stances were, so people couldn't pretend it wasn't what it was ... and it started taking flak, suddenly the messaging changed ... now it's fringe and, while we won't disavow it, it's totes not us.
Last edited:
What gohawks50 said above: you indicated in this thread you wouldn't vote for any candidate who didn't disavow this fringe movement, even if they weren't aligned at all. That's extreme in and of itself.
Right, which I admitted I was wrong about yesterday.
And yet here you are.
I contribute that to her being boosted by Republican pacs before the majority of voters knew anything at all about DSA. But since then they've been given airtime and the voters flipped on her after they knew more. Now that we've heard how extreme they can be, I suspect they will flame out on their own. I just don't ever see them being powerful in a strong capitalist country like ours, so we can't lose the plot by fracturing right before the mid-terms by not voting for candidates who haven't loudly disavowed them - that's my main and most immediate concern.
Let me make this easy, I will not vote for anyone who I feel doesn't have to same vision that I do. If that politician doesn't not state their vision/views then all I can do in make a guess. You can come to whatever conclusion you want and I will do the same.
That's why I said, you can keep with the philosophy of Don't Look Up.
Right, so all the progressives, STFU ... get on board the rationality train, put away your dreams of a socialist dystopia where you can pretend you, being a 3rd grade teacher, are just as important as that billionaire you're so jealous of, and everyone should have to pay for your sh.it ... and vote for the best moderate option, who will, no doubt, do their best to advance the country toward slightly more progressive views, and addressing some of the systematic inequalities.
Or, we can be derelicts, watching Mamdani run a mis/disinformation marketing campaign as mayor, celebrating pothole fixes and subway fixes (all of which were being done already), and cheering loudly that THIS is a guy who is revolutionizing everything and getting things done, for the people ... while he threatens to arrest world leaders and our allies.
Fawking idiots. MAGAts were so easy to manipulate ... and you nutters looked at that and said ... "hold my soy-milk mochalatta frappe."
Last edited:
I'm not sure why anyone would use that thought process to select someone to vote for. Seems like a recipe for an authoritarian disaster, just like most of the other reactionary movements that have lead to despotic rulers that get bandied about as proof of a modicum of socialism being an existential threat.
Is this another say her name type situation like with the Laken Riley thing?
Not what I'm talking about. I'm saying if Jon Ossoff, for example, doesn't loudly disavow DSA before November, it would be a travesty if we chose to vote for Mike Collins or not vote at all because of it, then we hand Trump the power he needs to finish the destruction he has planned for the remainder of his term.
I'm not going to get into a whole discussion of my views. I have my views and if I feel someone isn't going my direction and instead going the opposite to full Socialism, or enabling Socialism, then I'm not going to vote for them. I'm not going to blindly vote for one party over the other.
If Jon Ossoff believes in the DSA then it would be a travesty to vote for him. If we don't know what Jon Ossoff believes, then we have to make a decision.
Due to your abject refusal to disavow fascism the proletariat is forced to assume you are fascist or at the very least a fascist sympathizer. Your opinion is now and forever considered a dangerous potential contaigen.
Please stop exposing real Americans to your third world anti-capitalism and degenerate beliefs or the mighty fighting freedom eagles will be forced to make war.
A travesty would be not voting for him because of an unrealized boogeyman over a known one.
We just really need to be careful who we vote for. The boomers messed everything up so bad, we can't afford anymore mistakes.
Yeah, it was the colonialism it was under, when it wasn't under colonialism.
And now I'm going to bang my head against a concrete wall for a few hours so I can try to get into your headspace.
India was free from British colonialism in 1947.
AI Overview
India officially became a "socialist" state on December 18, 1976, when the word "socialist" was added to the Preamble of the Constitution of India by the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. [1, 2]
However, in practice, India operated on socialist-inspired and central-planning economic policies long before that word appeared in the constitution. [1, 2]
Pre-1976: De Facto Socialism
- 1947–1950s: Following independence in 1947, India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, championed a form of democratic socialism and state-led industrialization. [1]
- 1950: The government set up the Planning Commission to manage the economy through Soviet-style Five-Year Plans. [1]
- 1950s–1970s: The state took control of heavy industries, airlines, and major commercial banks (nationalizing 14 major banks in 1969), creating a heavily regulated mixed economy often called the "License Raj". [1, 2]
- Directive Principles: The original 1950 Constitution included non-binding socialistic welfare goals under Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), aiming to prevent the concentration of wealth and ensure community welfare, even though the word "socialist" was not yet in the Preamble. [1, 2, 3]
Post-1976: Constitutional Status and Shift
- 1976: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment officially inserted the words "Socialist" and "Secular" into the Preamble.
- 1991: Facing a severe balance-of-payments crisis, India largely moved away from its state-dominated socialist economic model by introducing major market-liberalization (LPG reforms), opening up to foreign trade and private enterprise while retaining "socialist" as a constitutional descriptor. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Last edited:
You just proved my point. If someone doesn't state their opinion then you're free to come to any conclusion. The difference is, I'm not running for office, I'm not asking for your vote, I don't care what you think of me.
Last edited:
The travesty would be voting for the boogeyman because you didn't find out if he's the boogeyman.
Here we go again with the boomer thing. You're just another person who grew up in an entitled childhood and now you want to continue the entitlement as an adult. You're right, the boomers did make a mistake, they should have never given their kids so much, all it did was created a bunch of entitled babies.
Potential future boogeyman > Real current boogeyman
Wut? Disavowing extremist ideologies is a recipe for an authoritarian (which is an extremist ideology in and of itself) disaster?
Make it make sense.
Thinking is HARD!!
ahhh the socialism obsession thing really makes sense now. You boomers have always been susceptible to "communism" and "socialism" fear tactics.
With how your generation operates, it makes sense you can't get past it 40 ish years later
I tell you what SB, I'll walk the length of the country telling everyone I see that you were right on the day the evil DSA ends democracy. It's a promise.
To be clear, I'm the last year of the boomers so I really don't relate to the actual boomers. But what I said stands, the entitlement coming from the next generation is very real and it explains why so many of you are driven to Socialism.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
Inside the contrast in styles between how Clemson and LSU are handling practices this month
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
Friday Clemson Football & Recruiting Nuggets
-
03
Rivals
Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia three to watch as touted LB Jay Schell's junior visits take shape
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
What Clemson's real depth chart looks like on the offensive line following scrimmage No. 2
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Takeaways from Clemson's Thursday scrimmage