Is this the "Little Surprise" of 47 and the Speaker?

[WDSmart]

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

It is impossible to have Socialism without authoritarianism. History, logic, human nature and education show that.

 

Your garbled analysis is mere spouting of soundbites, and silly ones at that. Public libraries are "socialist"? Well perhaps in their staffing LOL

 

 

Why do you think it is "impossible" to have socialism without authoritarianism? Socialism is "from each according to ability, and to each according to need." What part of that do you think requires an authoritarian government? A historical example is Native American Indian tribes. Although they had a Chief, he did not instruct them in their everyday life. They could go hunt or fish individually, whatever and whenever they liked. They could also agree to go together to accomplish some tasks for the entire tribe.

Logic tells us that economies and governments are separate entities. They have to work together to serve the society, but none have a one-to-one relationship. If you think one does, I'd say you should consider capitalism paired with a plutocracy (rule of the wealthy).

My education (BA, BS-CSE, and MBA) did not teach me there was a one-to-one link between socialism and authoritarianism. I do concede that I've heard that is taught today in some places, but that's more of an indoctrination than an education.

Most government-provided services labeled "Public" are examples of socialism. These services are provided to ALL citizens and paid for by the government. A good example is a public park or a public street. Everyone can go, and no one has to pay a fee. That's "to each according to need." The park is maintained by the government using funds that have been collected through taxes. Some citizens don't pay taxes, some pay only a little taxes, and some pay a lot. That's "from each according to ability.'

[novacova]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Socialism is "from each according to ability, and to each according to need." What part of that do you think requires an authoritarian government?

You described authoritarianism right there. Any infringement on self ownership is authoritarian. The US constitution requires that the government is run by the people for the people. But that really annoys the left because they want to call all the shots for you and dictate who gets what, entitled rewards without merit. 

[Yagoda]

3 minutes ago, novacova said:

You described authoritarianism right there. Any infringement on self ownership is authoritarian. The US constitution requires that the government is run by the people for the people. But that really annoys the left because they want to call all the shots for you and dictate who gets what, entitled rewards without merit. 

To each according to his ability

 

16 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Why do you think it is "impossible" to have socialism without authoritarianism? Socialism is "from each according to ability, and to each according to need." What part of that do you think requires an authoritarian government? A historical example is Native American Indian tribes. Although they had a Chief, he did not instruct them in their everyday life. They could go hunt or fish individually, whatever and whenever they liked. They could also agree to go together to accomplish some tasks for the entire tribe.

Logic tells us that economies and governments are separate entities. They have to work together to serve the society, but none have a one-to-one relationship. If you think one does, I'd say you should consider capitalism paired with a plutocracy (rule of the wealthy).

My education (BA, BS-CSE, and MBA) did not teach me there was a one-to-one link between socialism and authoritarianism. I do concede that I've heard that is taught today in some places, but that's more of an indoctrination than an education.

Most government-provided services labeled "Public" are examples of socialism. These services are provided to ALL citizens and paid for by the government. A good example is a public park or a public street. Everyone can go, and no one has to pay a fee. That's "to each according to need." The park is maintained by the government using funds that have been collected through taxes. Some citizens don't pay taxes, some pay only a little taxes, and some pay a lot. That's "from each according to ability.'

I think you need to go back to school. Or at least read Marx and Lenin, and not in a crib sheet for high schoolers

 

Public services are not socialism. Nor are taxes. They existed well before the idea of socialism was a wet dream in some loons brain. Care to account for that?

 

Care to account for the fact that all the examples of Socialist societies and government throughout history have been murderous, hate ridden dictatorships?

 

Care to explain to us how a philosophy that divides the world into Exploiters and Exploitees can eliminate exploitation without destroying the exploiters?

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, novacova said:

17 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Socialism is "from each according to ability, and to each according to need." What part of that do you think requires an authoritarian government?

You described authoritarianism right there. Any infringement on self ownership is authoritarian. The US constitution requires that the government is run by the people for the people. But that really annoys the left because they want to call all the shots for you and dictate who gets what, entitled rewards without merit. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "self ownership" or why you think socialism does not support that. I assume you think "to each according to needs" means the government would determine what your needs are (and are not). That part is true, but whether or not that's "authoritarian" depends on the type of government. If the government were a democracy, then everyone would vote on what your needs were . If the government was a representative democracy, then the elected representatives would together determine on what your needs were, or the elected officials in your area would determine that. If the government were an authoritarian type, like a monarchy, then the monarch or his appointed representatives would determine that.

That's exactly how it is done today in the USA (my home country), which is, for the most part, a representative democratic republic. 

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

To each according to his ability

 

I think you need to go back to school. Or at least read Marx and Lenin, and not in a crib sheet for high schoolers

 

Public services are not socialism. Nor are taxes. They existed well before the idea of socialism was a wet dream in some loons brain. Care to account for that?

 

Care to account for the fact that all the examples of Socialist societies and government throughout history have been murderous, hate ridden dictatorships?

 

Care to explain to us how a philosophy that divides the world into Exploiters and Exploitees can eliminate exploitation without destroying the exploiters?

Public services are socialist aspects of any society. I don't consider taxes specifically socialistic, but they are a way to fund the government. In a true socialistic society, there would be no taxes because there would be no wages paid. People would just work at what they felt was best for the society ("from each according to ability). Socialism existed long ago. It was the way humans (and many other animals) have lived together since time began. The terms "socialism," "capitalism," and "authoritarianism" were created long after that, but even those terms have existed in the English language for centuries.

Most all "murderous, hate-ridden dictatorships" were not socialistic or communistic. Many claimed to be, but they were not. Most of these were plutocracies and tried to gather all the wealth of the country into a few people at the top of their authoritarianistic governments).

Socialism and communism do not "divide the world into Exploiters and Eploitees." Both socialism and communism don't divide the "world" (society) at all. They treat everyone the same. In the case of socialism, that treatment is based on the perceived needs of the individual ("to each according to need"). In communism, there is no division at all. Everyone owns everything equally. The only historical example that I know of is the legends in the Bible of Jesus and his disciples. There have been some communes (communistic societies) established in some countries, but these are just experiments in communism.  It is capitalism that divides people into exploiters (those with the capital) and exploitees (those who work for them). 

 

[G_Money]

WTF!  I’m still waiting for Walker to tell us the reaction of Admiral McRaven when he advised the Admiral his pension will be worthless in 2 years.

[novacova]

50 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "self ownership" or why you think socialism does not support that. I assume you think "to each according to needs" means the government would determine what your needs are (and are not). That part is true, but whether or not that's "authoritarian" depends on the type of government. If the government were a democracy, then everyone would vote on what your needs were . If the government was a representative democracy, then the elected representatives would together determine on what your needs were, or the elected officials in your area would determine that. If the government were an authoritarian type, like a monarchy, then the monarch or his appointed representatives would determine that.

That's exactly how it is done today in the USA (my home country), which is, for the most part, a representative democratic republic. 

Good grief, a typical leftist convoluted contradiction. Self ownership is the exact opposite of socialism. 

 

The US is a republic of fifty states in their own right under the umbrella of a constitution that is there to protect the people from the tyranny of the government, federal, state, local and otherwise. States and local governments are able to make their own laws that represent the people so long it doesn’t infringe on the constitutional rights of the citizens. This really annoys the left because they ultimately want a uniform system throughout the country in every state. Blue states are constantly hacking at the constitution and pushing the envelope to circumvent and infringe on the rights of its citizens, opposing what has been a Right is now an offensive = tyrannical authoritarianism. A good example is DEI reporting law imposed on businesses in California, tyrannical socialism at its finest, the governor knows that the law is illegal is why he’s threatening to fight the new administration on this and other matters. In your blue state, you are represented by leftist that hates the constitution because it’s in the way of “progress” (the left’s word for oppression) is why businesses are leaving in droves of these blue states to get out from under the tyranny. Socialism is for the weak and submissive. Self ownership is the epitome of capitalism and self expression which is at 180 degree odds of socialism.

[BigStar]

5 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Most services that start with "pubic" are socialistic services

 

Pubic services always seem individualistic and entrepreneurial. Hence many of our members visit Thailand for lower pricing. Under fascist regimes, they're sometimes provided for the military and nationalistic purposes, e.g., "comfort women" and the Nazi Lebensborn Program. 

[BigStar]

The "little secret," not "surprise" (duh), was revealed before the election:

 

Speaker Mike Johnson reveals Trump's 'little secret' ahead of Election Day after Dems panic

 

Leftists are pathetically desperate with their ridiculous propaganda talking points. No wonder they lost credibility and the election.

[novacova]

47 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

It is capitalism that divides people into exploiters (those with the capital) and exploitees (those who work for them).

Utterly ridiculous. 
Self ownership and expression is what aspires capitalism and prosperity, doesn’t work well with government interference. Socialism incites weakness and government dependency, government dependency requires government control. No government can create capitalistic prosperity, that is up to the individual, the ultimate expression of freedom = capitalism.

Edited Saturday at 06:46 AM by novacova

[WDSmart]

29 minutes ago, novacova said:

Good grief, a typical leftist convoluted contradiction. Self ownership is the exact opposite of socialism. 

 

The US is a republic of fifty states in their own right under the umbrella of a constitution that is there to protect the people from the tyranny of the government, federal, state, local and otherwise. States and local governments are able to make their own laws that represent the people so long it doesn’t infringe on the constitutional rights of the citizens. This really annoys the left because they ultimately want a uniform system throughout the country in every state. Blue states are constantly hacking at the constitution and pushing the envelope to circumvent and infringe on the rights of its citizens, opposing what has been a Right is now an offensive = tyrannical authoritarianism. A good example is DEI reporting law imposed on businesses in California, tyrannical socialism at its finest, the governor knows that the law is illegal is why he’s threatening to fight the new administration on this and other matters. In your blue state, you are represented by leftist that hates the constitution because it’s in the way of “progress” (the left’s word for oppression) is why businesses are leaving in droves of these blue states to get out from under the tyranny. Socialism is for the weak and submissive. Self ownership is the epitome of capitalism and self expression which is at 180 degree odds of socialism.

I started my comment proceeding this one by stating I didn't know what you meant by "self ownership." I thank you for your explanation above explaining your use of that term. It's basically selfishness - putting your desires above the community's needs and best interests. And, yes, you're right. That is the opposite of socialism.

The USA is now a republic of fifty states under the constitution you describe above. This does not annoy the left (or at least me). What annoys me is the right's (people like you?) decision of what constitutional rights are versus what can be legislated individually by each state. Your example is a good one. How is DEI Hire a violation of constitutional rights and not a law that can be legislated by a state? It's not the Constitution that is thought to be "in the way of progress" by the left. It's the right's interpretation of the Constitution that is in the way of progress. But, of course, that is one of the major differences between liberals who are open to and promote change and conservatives who are against change. An example is "Make America Great Again" vs. "Make America Greater." If businesses are leaving states that favor DEI Hire, it is because they want the right to ensure their workforce is populated mainly with superior people - straight White males. 

Socialism is for the strong and accepting. A good example of socialism is how most people envision an ideal family. Some in the family contribute more than others. Some don't contribute much or are even a burden, like a child who is retarded or crippled. But all are given as much as the family can give. "From each according to ability. To each according to need," Capitalism is just the Law of the Jungle. The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. People who are a burden are ignored and cast out. 

I do agree with your last sentence, "Self ownership is the epitome of capitalism and self expression which is at 180 degree odds of socialism." Sharing, using self expression, is the epitome of socialism.


 

[WDSmart]

40 minutes ago, novacova said:

Utterly ridiculous. 
Self ownership and expression is what aspires capitalism and prosperity, doesn’t work well with government interference. Socialism incites weakness and government dependency, government dependency requires government control. No government can create capitalistic prosperity, that is up to the individual, the ultimate expression of freedom = capitalism.

Socialism doesn't incite weakness. It promotes sharing. 

Freedom is not the ultimate expression of capitalism. Selfishness is the ultimate expression of capitalism.

[OneMoreFarang]

I guess I am not the only one who wants a summary. Good luck we have AI:

 

Recess appointments allow the U.S. President to fill federal vacancies when the Senate is not in session, as outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. This provision was created to ensure government continuity during lengthy congressional absences in the 18th century.While many presidents have used this power, it has typically been for lower-level positions. Congress can disrupt recess appointments by holding "pro forma" sessions. Recent discussions suggest that President-elect Donald Trump might exploit this mechanism to appoint controversial figures without Senate confirmation shortly after his inauguration, potentially extending their terms until 2027.Critics warn that such actions could undermine the checks and balances intended by the Founding Fathers, who designed the system to prevent any single branch of government from wielding excessive power.

 

https://www.perplexity.ai/

 

[spidermike007]

That might be the little surprise but the big surprise is that the man that they think they elected is not that man at all. Remember? 

 

He promised to cut the deficit. He added $8T. 

 

He promised to build a wall. He only did 458 miles out of 2,000. Most of it was repair or replacement, not new.

 

He promised to make Mexico pay. They didn't. We did.

 

He promised to unveil a new healthcare plan. It didn't exist.

 

He promised a middle-class tax cut. He cut taxes for the rich. The middle class is paying for it.

 

He said he wouldn't play golf as President. He made 250 visits (way more than Obama) to his own golf clubs. It cost taxpayers $150 million.

 

He said he'd increase economic growth by 4%. Nope. Biden did.

 

He promised an infrastructure plan. He had none. President Biden signed a massive one.

 

He promised to hire "the best people." He fired 3/4 of them and then said they were the worst ever, and they said HE was in fact the worst ever.

 

He promised to bring down the price of prescription drugs. He didn't: Biden did.

 

He promised a Hillary lock-up. Nope. 

 

Promised we'd win the trade war with China. Nope, It cost about 250,000 jobs and hurt Americans, not helped them, and it may have started a massive inflationary trend that led to years of inflation recently. 

 

He promised his corporate tax cuts would help and benefit workers, and corporations would use that money to invest in American workers. They didn't, they used that money to buy back stocks.

 

He promised to revive the coal industry. Never happened: more coal jobs were lost during his presidency.

 

I could go on and on all day long about the failures of his presidency. 

[BigStar]

28 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

could go on and on all day long about the failures of his presidency. 

 

Off topic, misinformed, biased rant compelled by the usual condition unrecognized by medical science whose name we may not speak. The voters have passed judgement, old man. Your time's past; you learned nothing.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:20 AM by BigStar

[BigStar]

[jerrymahoney]

Presidents like Ronald Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes did use recess appointments, although usually for positions below the Cabinet level. Only three Cabinet secretaries have been appointed during a recess since 1900, according to the Senate Historical Office. The most recent was Mickey Kantor, who served briefly as Clinton’s secretary of commerce.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/14/politics/cabinet-confirmation-recess-what-matters/index.html

[BigStar]

58 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Presidents like Ronald Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes did use recess appointments, although usually for positions below the Cabinet level. Only three Cabinet secretaries have been appointed during a recess since 1900, according to the Senate Historical Office. The most recent was Mickey Kantor, who served briefly as Clinton’s secretary of commerce.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/14/politics/cabinet-confirmation-recess-what-matters/index.html

 

Irrelevant. Next.

 

[BigStar]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Critics warn that such actions could undermine the checks and balances intended by the Founding Fathers, who designed the system to prevent any single branch of government from wielding excessive power.

 

We live in desperate times owing to a failed regime's imposition of destructive leftist policies. Normal confirmations would take years, now that Dems have totally reversed themselves on eliminating the filibuster, and they will obstruct to the max just to obstruct. It's warfare now.

 

Checks and balances still apply as Congress may still impeach (as the Dems misused against Trump) and the courts, when not engaged in political lawfare, still decide the constitutionality of law.

 

The "worry" in this case comes from--wait for it--the Dems.

Edited Saturday at 10:21 AM by BigStar

[G_Money]

On 11/21/2024 at 2:29 PM, scottiejohn said:

How do you know, were you there?

 Were you?

[scottiejohn]

9 minutes ago, G_Money said:

 Were you?

Why ask? (a stupid post)

I never gave any indication that I was there!

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

43 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

Irrelevant. Next.

 

No. Your 'they all do it" graphic doesn't hold up for cabinet recess appointments.

[BigStar]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

No. Your 'they all do it" graphic doesn't hold up for cabinet recess appointments.

 

Yes. The question is one of constitutionality. Trump's in a big hurry to hit the ground running. It appears he'll succeed in doing so. He wasn't elected to do business as usual.

 

Enough with this constant womanly anxiety. Go lift weights and get over it.

Edited Saturday at 02:13 PM by BigStar

[jerrymahoney]

7 hours ago, BigStar said:

The question is one of constitutionality.

The question is also one of procedure:

 

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who was elected Republican leader this week, hasn’t ruled out recess appointments, but he has also acknowledged they could be procedurally difficult to achieve if there is enough GOP opposition.“

 

And the Supreme Court has ruled on what is and what is not the 'constitutionality' of recess appointments.

 

The "womanly anxiety" most of concern to Trump comes from Republican Senators Collins and Murkowski and maybe a few others.

 

Edited Saturday at 09:17 PM by jerrymahoney

[TedG]

16 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Why do you think it is "impossible" to have socialism without authoritarianism? Socialism is "from each according to ability, and to each according to need." What part of that do you think requires an authoritarian government? A historical example is Native American Indian tribes. Although they had a Chief, he did not instruct them in their everyday life. They could go hunt or fish individually, whatever and whenever they liked. They could also agree to go together to accomplish some tasks for the entire tribe.

Logic tells us that economies and governments are separate entities. They have to work together to serve the society, but none have a one-to-one relationship. If you think one does, I'd say you should consider capitalism paired with a plutocracy (rule of the wealthy).

My education (BA, BS-CSE, and MBA) did not teach me there was a one-to-one link between socialism and authoritarianism. I do concede that I've heard that is taught today in some places, but that's more of an indoctrination than an education.

Most government-provided services labeled "Public" are examples of socialism. These services are provided to ALL citizens and paid for by the government. A good example is a public park or a public street. Everyone can go, and no one has to pay a fee. That's "to each according to need." The park is maintained by the government using funds that have been collected through taxes. Some citizens don't pay taxes, some pay only a little taxes, and some pay a lot. That's "from each according to ability.'

 

Socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates for the community, rather than individuals, to own and manage resources and property. It's based on the idea that public ownership of the means of production will lead to a more equal society. 

 

 

 

Socialism is not welfare.   Socialism is a system where the government owns the means of production.   All the businesses are owned by and run by the government. 

 

[Yagoda]

On 11/21/2024 at 2:29 PM, scottiejohn said:

How do you know, were you there?

There's books about it, read one

[WDSmart]

3 hours ago, TedG said:

 

Socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates for the community, rather than individuals, to own and manage resources and property. It's based on the idea that public ownership of the means of production will lead to a more equal society. 

 

 

 

Socialism is not welfare.   Socialism is a system where the government owns the means of production.   All the businesses are owned by and run by the government. 

 

I believe everything you say above is true. What you haven't said is what type of government it is that owns the means of production. Most people believe a socialist government has to be authoritarian. What I've been saying is that socialism, just as you've described above, can exist under a variety of forms of government including a democracy and a representative democracy. 

What you've left out is that the government, whatever type it is, then provides for the needs of all the people in the society.

I was always taught and continue to repeat this short phrase, which is a simple description of socialism: "From each according to their abilities. To each according to their needs."

[BigStar]

8 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The question is also one of procedure:

 

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who was elected Republican leader this week, hasn’t ruled out recess appointments, but he has also acknowledged they could be procedurally difficult to achieve if there is enough GOP opposition.“

 

Off topic deflection. "Yes" still stands. The question of procedure wasn't raised in the OP. OBVIOUSLY recess appointments are also voted on, so you've raised another point underlining that "checks and balances" are still operational.

 

Note that Dems very much support strict procedures if they favor Dems. If not, as in McConnell's delay on Merrick Garland (for which we must be ever thankful), then there's yelling and screaming.

 

 

8 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

And the Supreme Court has ruled on what is and what is not the 'constitutionality' of recess appointments

 

And therefore Trump will make constitutional recess appointments just as have others before him.

 

 

 

Question: Is it constitutional for a President to initiate recess appointments of executive branch officers, including cabinet officials?

 

Answer: Yes. The Constitution explicitly provides for the President to initiate recess appointments under Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, “The President shall have the Power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

 

Question: Are there any limits on the President’s power to recess appointment officers?  

 

Answer: Yes, recess appointments can only be made during recesses of certain length.

 

https://americarenewing.com/issues/question-and-answer-recess-appointments/

 

 

8 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The "womanly anxiety" most of concern to Trump comes from Republican Senators Collins and Murkowski and maybe a few others.

 

No, your womanly anxiety runs throughout your concerns about Trump. Recently we had to deal with your being needlessly "scared" about Trump and Project 2025. Are you still merely splashing in the pool as your exercise? Not helping the T at all.

 

Edited Sunday at 05:09 AM by BigStar

[jerrymahoney]

As I linked above according to incoming Senate majority leader Thune, the concern is not whether recess appointments are  constitutional but by what procedure the Senate might go into recess if a sufficient number of Republican senators oppose it.

And the Supreme Court has already weighed into that as I'm sure you know.

But I hope to give you more opportunities to channel your inner Steve Cheung like this one after the Arlington National Cemetery dustup:

 

Arlington National Cemetery − the country's biggest and most revered military burial ground − said in a statement that "an incident took place, and a report was filed." Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said a cemetery official "decided to physically block members of President Trump's team."

 

"The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump's team during a very solemn ceremony," Cheung added.

Edited Sunday at 05:58 AM by jerrymahoney

[BigStar]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

As I linked above according to incoming Senate majority leader Thune, the concern is not whether recess appointments are  constitutional but by what procedure the Senate might go into recess if a sufficient number of Republican senators oppose it.

 

And as I pointed out, that's not the concern voiced in the OP. Nor is it a question that needs to be raised for red herring purposes, as it's obvious a prez can't make recess appts w/o the Senate going into recess. Or is that news to you? SCOTUS had to teach Obama that lesson. Yes, Trump and his transition team know the procedure quite well. So we'll let them worry about that.

 

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

But I hope to give you more opportunities to channel your inner Steve Cheung like this one after the Arlington National Cemetery dustu

 

You might review the procedures by which your off-topic baiting posts can, and will, be removed.