What is the difference between socialist and dim?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am sure you have a new, intelligent way of making that work.

Yes.
It's called: hostile take-over.
We take it over and if the bankers don't like it they can scurry off to the US.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Socialiste will natiknalise the banks and, quite generally, the utilities and infrastructural maintenance.
Democrats will not.

Socialists, generally speaking, will not invade foreign countries to suit the oil and weapons companies.
Democrats will.

Socialists will nationalise medicine and education: completely.
Democrats will not.

Democrats will pledge allegience to the flag and thank God during speeches.
Socialists will not.

Socialsits will defund national defense so they are easily defeated in a war. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Socialsits will defund national defense so they are easily defeated in a war. 😏

Yeah... Sort of like the Vietnamese farmers were easily defeated by the US?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yeah... Sort of like the Vietnamese farmers were easily defeated by the US?

North Vietnam had an army and they received support from the communist governments nearby. Many political restrictions where put on the US Military to prevent them from winning the war because of a fear of escalation to a greater war against the nearby communist governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnam

Originally posted by RJHinds
North Vietnam had an army and they received support from the communist governments nearby. Many political restrictions where put on the US Military to prevent them from winning the war because of a fear of escalation to a greater war against the nearby communist governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnam

No the problem the Americans had was the lack of a viable alternative government for Vietnam. The last thing the Americans wanted was to win the war and actually take up the responsibility of government themselves, assuming that was even achievable with anything short of genocide. They could not take up the overtly imperialist mantle of the French, who were completely defeated before the Americans got going, and had no prospect of achieving the slightest legitimacy. Without a viable alternative to offer the Vietnamese, the Americans had only one option which is the one they adopted. This was a war of punishment, intended to demonstrate the price that other small countries would pay if they interfered with America's version of economic imperialism. There was never a legitimate objective in any moral or political sense for America's interference in Vietnam (let alone its even more brutal and genocidal attack on Cambodia). This was pure, cyncial power politics at its most despicable and naked aggression at its most vile.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes.
It's called: hostile take-over.
We take it over and if the bankers don't like it they can scurry off to the US.

it's not new, been done before. and you forgot the "working" part. it didn't.

Originally posted by finnegan
No the problem the Americans had was the lack of a viable alternative government for Vietnam. The last thing the Americans wanted was to win the war and actually take up the responsibility of government themselves, assuming that was even achievable with anything short of genocide. They could not take up the overtly imperialist mantle of the French, who wer ...[text shortened]... s was pure, cyncial power politics at its most despicable and naked aggression at its most vile.

Americans were trying to prevent the spread of communism. Our leaders just did not go about it in the correct way. The people have a tendency to elect stupid leaders. I plan to vote for Donald Trump for President so we can start getting rid of some of these fools. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Americans were trying to prevent the spread of communism. Our leaders just did not go about it in the correct way. The people have a tendency to elect stupid leaders. I plan to vote for Donald Trump for President so we can start getting rid of some of these fools. 😏

Set a thief to catch a thief?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Set a thief to catch a thief?

Something like that, but not exactly. 😏

Originally posted by Phranny
In my heart I want to vote for Bernie. However, because most in the U.S. are extraordinarily ignorant, I fear he cannot win. Hilary is articulate, intelligent, well versed in both foreign and domestic affairs and is a liberal. She probably has better connections than Bernie, which might play out as being able to get more done in D.C. The entire roster of Republican candidates is an embarrassment.

After watching this interview she seems autistic to me.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Just to be clear... I am a socialist / communist.
I think nationalising banks is a good thing.

Like the Fed?

Originally posted by Phranny
In my heart I want to vote for Bernie. However, because most in the U.S. are extraordinarily ignorant, I fear he cannot win. Hilary is articulate, intelligent, well versed in both foreign and domestic affairs and is a liberal. She probably has better connections than Bernie, which might play out as being able to get more done in D.C. The entire roster of Republican candidates is an embarrassment.

do you think the republicans will work with hilary? they didn't work with obama, do you think they will like her more?

so whatever president you have in the whit house, if he isn't republican, the republican will go against him just out of spite.

as for bernie not being able to win, just look at the republican roster. whoever they throw at him, bernie can beat him.

Originally posted by whodey
After watching this interview she seems autistic to me.

Since you mentioned it, I took another look and you might be right. Perhaps that is her problem. My bad. 😏

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you think the republicans will work with hilary? they didn't work with obama, do you think they will like her more?

so whatever president you have in the whit house, if he isn't republican, the republican will go against him just out of spite.

as for bernie not being able to win, just look at the republican roster. whoever they throw at him, bernie can beat him.

We don't need or want a Bernie or a Hillary.

Originally posted by whodey
After watching this interview she seems autistic to me.

Whodey, you really must stop using words whose meanings you don't come close to understanding.