House of Representatives Voted to Condemns Socialism

but you try and demean them too..you try and demean them too.. What a sad little man.
#6 | Posted by boaz

Although you might be on to something with that bit.

Trump called fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers" during his presidency
www.nbcnews.com

toward men who are better than him

True, I cannot hope to reach your level of mental acuity and comprehension of world affairs. A Black man who thinks the GOP is his friend. But, anywho, this site seems more on level with your awesometude:

feetfinder.com
FeetFinder is the most convenient website for verified users to buy or sell custom foot content in a safe and secure environment
feetfinder.com

George Carlin on Muhammed Ali and the Vietnam War
(Live On The Ed Sullivan Show, February 28, 1971)

www.youtube.com

2 mins

Hi Corky

Perfect, just perfect. Thanks for posting.

Muhammad Ali never hurt anyone outside the ring. And only on a few rare occasions did he really want to hurt his foe inside the ring.

In 1967, the Immortal Pugilist felt awful after beating US Army/All-Services boxing champion Zora Folley. When the referee stopped the fight, Ali immediately went over to Folley and hugged him.

Sidenote: I was on a radio talk show several years ago to discuss Muhammad Ali after he died. I was sandwiched between ex-champion Evander Holyfield and another champion boxer whose name escapes me for the moment.

I'm off to play cards and wish I had time for some more Muhammad Ali stories.

Thanks again for posting this.

And Ed Sullivan's show would soon end after this episode, right?

Gosh, I wonder if the names of the 'Democrats' that crossed the aisle to condemn 'socialism' will be found in these websites:

www.trackaipac.com

www.boughtbyzionism.org

I'm off with my wife to play cards so I'll have to check later.

But please help yourselves, though Fellow Travelers.

Corrected to: "But please help yourselves though, Fellow Travelers."

#5 Indeed. "major" boazo boi doesn't understand that ingratitude is a Cardinal sin.

God to see some Democrats getting in on this.

"socialist policies" in the U.S.

Which policies are those?

We have great socialism for Billionaires!

"Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor"

en.wikipedia.org

Only for corporations.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is talking about raising the minimum wage to $15. Instead, Repubs talks about "affordability", and for democrats it's not even on the radar. Let's see if Trump is dumb enough to ignore Gen Z like the Dems are.

MLK said "Poverty doesn't know color", so the Left doesn't care about it I guess. No intersectionality.

#19 You must have slept through the November elections:

'Tis like shooting fish in a barrel ...

-> Georgia voters ousted two Republican members of the state's Public Service Commission in favor of two Democrats"the first Democrats to win statewide nonfederal offices in decades.

-> Democrats in Mississippi Break the G.O.P.'s State House Supermajority

-> Every single county in Virginia - even deeply red counties - saw shifts TOWARDS the Democrats, as opposed to how they voted 1 year ago.

-> Dems flip Wichita School Board from a 4-3 GOP majority to a 5-2 Democratic majority. Democratic candidates Amy Warren and Amy Jensen defeated Republican incumbents Hazel Stabler and Kathy Bond.

->Two of Tuesday's school board elections were in Bucks County, Pa., which was considered "ground zero" for right-wing groups' takeover of school boards in 2021. A few years ago, conservatives on these boards in Pennbridge and Central Bucks districts were using their roles to pass policies targeting LGBTQ+ students and banning books.

---> Democrats flipped control of both boards in 2023, and on Tuesday, they ousted every Republican from both of these boards, except for one. The Pennbridge school board is now 8-1, with Democratic members in control. The Central Bucks school board is 9-0.

-> In Texas, we even won in Lockhart, which sits in a district so red that Democrats normally don't even run. We had a clean sweep in Cy-Fair ISD, another deeply red area that not even Greg Abbott could save your party.

-> In SD-9, another red district, we saw an 8 point shift for the Democrat

#20 | Posted by A_Friend

What are ranting about? That has nothing to do with my post about minimum wage (of course).

#19 Affordability, affordability, affordability: Democrats' new winning formula

From a democratic socialist in New York to moderates in Virginia and New Jersey, Democrats found success by focusing on the cost of living " not culture wars.

www.politico.com

#21 Affordability, Not Ideology, Drove The 2025 Elections "And Democrats Listened

www.forbes.com

#21 Democrats zero in on affordable housing as potential winning issue

thehill.com

#21 Affordability really matters

www.aft.org

#21 In your #19 you said, "Repubs talks about "affordability" ...

If you always tell the truth you never have to remember what you said.

Of course.

You're welcome.

#26 | Posted by A_Friend

Do you even read news outside your bubble? Trump is talking about nothing but. Did you see him talk NYC Mayor elect Mamdani on Youtube?

It's all Republicans are talking about in the conservative and decentralized news.

You need to get more.

Yet still, nobody mentions $15. Which would make things affordable for Gen Z. Mamdani mentioned everything but.

#27 Gaslight away. No one's buying what you're selling.

Did you not pay any attention to the results earlier this month?

#27 And as for the Trump talking about nothing but...

You're right.

The Trump talks about nothing but...

...the Trump.

Good call, rat.

Good call.

"The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution condemning socialism."

If those voting members were representing their districts, then likely they don't even know what they voted for or against.

Like the posters here who can't define socialism either, even though they throw the term around.

Oh, for the days when Babbles would rant against socialism while posting illiterately from the public library.

This kind of ---- is why people are fed up with both parties.

This doesn't create jobs, lower inflation, or extend health insurance benefits.

#31 But it accomplishes one single, very important thing (to conservatives, GOPyers, and MAGA):

Creating the illusion that both parties are --- ensures that the Democratic positions on issues are summarily dismissed...

...because people are fed up with both parties.

"Notably, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. -- who endorsed Mamdani just days before the mayoral election -- also voted in favor of the measure."

This is only "notable" in the false narrative of Mamdani being a socialist.

This entire moment is a false narrative.

This is the political equivalent of teaching children how Betsy Ross sewed the flag.

Don't they have to define it first?

Gassy Rodent is an unemployable "influencer" whose GTA skills left him out of the running for an E-sports gig.

"The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution condemning socialism."
If those voting members were representing their districts, then likely they don't even know what they voted for or against.
Like the posters here who can't define socialism either, even though they throw the term around.
Oh, for the days when Babbles would rant against socialism while posting illiterately from the public library.
#30 | Posted by Dbt2

Or, like when Boaz posted this article, knowing that he has been receiving government checks/government medical care his entire adult life. And when that is mentioned, he says he somehow earned it. So it's not that he thinks those government benefits are a bad thing and we should get rid of it. He just doesn't want anyone else to have it.

have a government that looks out for them and makes sure they don't starve in the streets and receive proper medical care?

While I could agree with you on national healthcare(we wouldn't agree on how to pay for it), It's not the job of the federal government to "look out" for citizens. That's the job of local governments.

We have two very different world views, which probably cannot be beside one another because they are so diametrically opposed.

I'm of the opinion that the federal government should NOT be in the lives of the people. Local government, yes. Federal government, no. But there's not enough money at the local level for socialists to put forth their pipe dreams. That's why socialists want everything at the national level.

#36,

Censored, your comment is laughable. Are you trolling? I give you an A+ if you are.

And when that is mentioned, he says he somehow earned it.

"somehow"? ROTFLMAO. Tell me, do they take taxes out of welfare? They sure took taxes from my salary. So now the military is not earning their pay? Is that what you are saying?

You cannot have socialism without secure borders.

Prove me wrong.

It's not the job of the federal government to "look out" for citizens. That's the job of local governments. We have two very different world views, which probably cannot be beside one another because they are so diametrically opposed. I'm of the opinion that the federal government should NOT be in the lives of the people. Local government, yes. Federal government, no. But there's not enough money at the local level for socialists to put forth their pipe dreams. That's why socialists want everything at the national level.
#37 | Posted by boaz

Yes, when a few million people are flooded out of Florida or Louisiana by the next hurricane, we should expect the state to take care of that. Seems logical and totally within reason. Like expecting the mercury spewed into the air by West Virginia to respect state borders and not poison the rest of us.

"somehow"? ROTFLMAO. Tell me, do they take taxes out of welfare? They sure took taxes from my salary. So now the military is not earning their pay? Is that what you are saying?
#38 | Posted by boaz

I'm saying that, just as we provide minimum standards for the well-being of our soldiers, we can provide minimum standards for all of our citizens.

There is nothing magical about serving in the military that makes you more entitled to basic care than anyone else. And certainly nothing magical about serving in the military that entitles you to that care for the rest of your life after you leave the service, while those who work for a living outside of the military to pay for those soldiers go without.

You cannot have socialism without secure borders.
Prove me wrong.
#39 | Posted by boaz

Whut? What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?

You cannot have socialism without secure borders.
Prove me wrong.
#39 | Posted by boaz

Not sure you even know what "socialism" is.

Also.. Define "secure borders".

It's not the job of the federal government to "look out" for citizens. --Boaz

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sorry for formatting. Meant to close the BF earlier. /b>

You cannot have socialism without secure borders.
Prove me wrong.
#39 | Posted by boaz

Non sequitur of the day.

I guess those lunatics will be coming after Social Security now?
Those too stupid to know that Socialism is not Communism really are dangerous!

DBT2 tell us who hires the illegal immigrants? Capitalists! Who are the most entrepreneurial people in America? Immigrants! Who turned Miami into the major city it is today? Immigrants!
The war against immigrants isn't based on economics, jobs for Americans, etc. It's based on RACIsM! Sorry if some don't like hearing that but it is absolutely true and, not surprisingly, it is happening under the most racist President in my lifetime! Donald Trump established his creds as a Ravid decades ago when he took out full page ads in NYT calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five and never apologized even after they were completely exonerated with DNA evidence!

It's not the job of the federal government to "look out" for citizens. That's the job of local governments.
#37 | Posted by boaz

What part of The Constitution are you referring to with this -------- claim of yours?

You just make stuff up.

You lie.

And you don't even seem to realize you've been brainwashed to believe all the lies you tell.

Go on, prove me wrong. Liitle bitch.

#39 "major" boazo boi says "You cannot have socialism without secure borders. Prove me wrong."

Well, guess what?

You cannot bake an angel food cake without a good supply of hose replacement washers.

Prove me wrong.

#39 | Posted by boaz

DR's biggest recipient of "socialism." LMAO!!

>It's not the job of the federal government to "look out" for citizens. --Boaz

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
#42 | Posted by Dbt2

"Clearly just a figure of speech. Like when they added the bit about abolishing slavery or giving women the right to vote. Not meant to be taken literally."
-MAGAts

Taking care of their citizens? Where do you think you are, China?

"Resolved by the House of Representatives that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States,"

Hey firefighters and public school go eff yourself. We don't want you here. Social security and Medicare recipients, get a job. No more mooching. Anyone who drives on public roadways, pull over immediately. Those don't belong to you.
Cancel your vacation to a national Park you commie.
All of those things are socialist and we can't have them anymore.

#53 None of that is Socialism.

I mean....

SH'liz'm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Can someone plz edumacate me on when Socialism stopped being a system where the workers owned the means of production, and instead became another name for capitalism.

Mamdani is not a socialist. Nor is Bernie. Or AOC. If anything, they are hyper-capitalists, as their programs are wholly dependent on capitalism.

This move by the house may be beneficial from a theatric perspective, but that's it. And New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for Mamdani. So let's see where this goes.

I simple terms, socialism is a political and economic system where the community, rather than private individuals, owns and manages the means of production like factories and resources. The core idea is to distribute wealth and resources more equitably, reduce inequality, and ensure that basic needs are met for all citizens through collective or government ownership and regulation. This contrasts with capitalism, where private ownership and free markets dominate.
Key ideas of socialism
Collective ownership: The community, or the state on behalf of the community, owns and controls the main industries and resources.
Wealth distribution: A primary goal is to reduce income inequality and ensure a more even distribution of wealth and resources.
Social welfare: Socialism emphasizes providing for the common good by ensuring everyone has access to essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.
Government regulation: Many socialist ideas include significant government intervention to regulate the economy and ensure businesses act in the public interest, not just for profit.
Variations of socialism
Democratic socialism: This form allows for private businesses and property but uses high taxes to fund social programs and supports social ownership of key industries.
State socialism: This model involves direct government ownership and control of the means of production.

Of course Boaz, that yuuuge sucka off the public ---, has no idea what socialism is.
That's the kind of ignorance the groomers, gropers, and grifters in the GOP manipulating people like him count on.
They are often rewarded, seldom disappointed.

Many of us out here lost in this America know in our heart of hearts that fascist cutthroat capitalism is in charge, they own Wall Street, Congress, certainly the federal Supreme Court, and Trump doesn't mind being called a fascist because at this point, he is doing what he can to take from the poor and give to the rich.
Fascism is the permanent rule of the very few very rich over the great many, using fear, intimidation, domination and violence...kinda Trump's war plan, war against we at the bottom of the economic pyramid plan.

High tech industry is very important and creates millions of jobs but ... .??? Can you eat it?
While Trump deports thousands of migrants farmers can't harvest their crops. Don't have workers to pick fruit trees. Food prices are rising at an alarming rate but efforts to deport the people who do these important jobs are increasing!
I shop online for groceries and I know that might increase the prices but I was going to order pears a couple of days ago; two pears came to almost $5.00!
We have family farms that have been farming for generations going bankrupt all over the country!
I honestly believe we're heading for a food shortage crisis but our leaders aren't paying any attention to it.
Americans need to seriously consider our insane immigration policies! I've said it before; America won't have an immigration problem until immigrants don't want to come here and that time is approaching! So, unless you want to be harvesting crops or planting them you might give some serious consideration to what the farmers are telling us!

should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

#55 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Who owns the roads?

Roads, sidewalks, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, speed limits... not to mention Police, Fire, EMS. Parks, libraries, schools... democratically elected officials... ALL SOCIALIST Horrors!!

'The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution condemning socialism...'

I hope, on their drives home, they had to pay a toll at the end of every street.

We hate socialism. But we love socialist infrastructure.

We Americans are a very politically confused bunch of people.

But that's why they call us "the American Experiment" even still after 250 years.

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger

Perfectly describes everything I listed that you insisted is not socialism.

You can Google socialist Nations and you get a series of countries nobody here wants to live in.

Vietnam has tons of westerners moving in, raising prices of property

-#65, You are describing any function of government and are calling it Socialism. That's not what it is.

I don't understand the love affair lefties have with this word.

#68 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

It's pretty simple actually.

Democrats love to love and Republicans love to hate.

Being a member in good standing of the party of Hate it's understandable that you would not understand anything the party of Love does.

Socialism would be far preferable to our current system for the vast majority of Americans.

Re 66

My AI tells me that social welfare polices contribute to citizen well-being.

Countries often identified with socialist policies, like Finland, Denmark, and other Nordic nations, consistently rank high on happiness reports due to factors such as strong social welfare systems, high levels of trust, economic equality, and public services like healthcare and education. While happiness is subjective and these nations have social democratic rather than purely socialist economies, the correlation is often cited as evidence that social welfare policies contribute to citizen well-being.

I don't understand the love affair lefties have with this word.

#68 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

See post 71..

Why are republicans so terrified of the word?

Republican Party's blind loyalty to Trump has led the party that once prided itself on law, accountability, and economic order to now tolerates lawlessness and political chaos. In the tariff debate, nearly all Republican members of the House opposed repealing Trump's measures"even those who had once defended free trade in previous administrations.

Congressional MAGATs are feckless vaginas.

" Socialism would be far preferable to our current system for the vast majority of Americans.

#70 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2025-11-24 11:42 AM | REPLY | FLAG"

Every time it's been implemented the result has been human tragedy.

Skipped right over 71, huh?

Are you using "socialism" to refer to totalitarian communism? Wouldn't surprise me. You associate socialism with the Chinese famine of the 1950s-1960s?

Isn't it time for some grilling tips from you so that you reclaim some semblance of DR humanity?

Every time it's been implemented the result has been human tragedy.

#74 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Another Lie.

see post 71

BRinger:

Merriam Webster's "fascism": Are you enjoying the move toward this?

a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

I'll take Sweden, thanks.

Frankly, from what I remember from college days, fascism is government control of private industry. PoliSci 101.

I'm not the one changing the definition of Socialism.

Your definition: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Ok, so? This in and of itself is a bad thing? The community shouldn't be involved in the means of production, distribution, and exchange? Just our reptilian overlords?

I don't know what you're trying to say.

I'm not the one changing the definition of Socialism.

#79 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Not sure if you even know what socialism is but you sure are terrified of it.

You should probably stop reading Russian and Chinese propaganda. You are obviously not mentally strong enough to resist it.

Socialist.......on the spectrum of accusations that are commonly hurled....socialist is the least concerning term to be labeled.

Fascist
rapist
Pedophile

Don't we agree those terms are much more hostile?

sorry...forgot MAGAT and Trumper.

and "republican" LOL

----....forgot commie

Fascist
rapist
Pedophile

Don't we agree those terms are much more hostile?

#82 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Duh? They ARE very bad things to be.

Democratic socialism is not a bad thing. It's only been made out to be a bad thing by terrified republicans.

You know.. Like DEI and "woke".

-Democratic socialism is not a bad thing.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party disagrees with you.

#87 | Posted by eberly

Only if the United States hasn't had a decades-long misinterpretation of the word . . .

The Democrats aren't smart enough or have b@ll$ enough to rebrand as Democratic Socialists. They'd attract more Millennials and Gen Xers than you could imagine.

And, Eberly, aren't you horrified at what's happened to the Republican brand? It's shot to hell. When will you abdicate? The national party isn't returning to your middle ground in your lifetime. And more of the local Rs are likely toting the national water than you know.

I've found that's the case in my rural county in Virginia. You write them about a purple issue (dementia) and get a somewhat cynical response (do you need us to vote for certain legislation?).

He advertises as Christian. Conservative. Compassionate. Don't they all?

-The Democrats aren't smart enough or have b@ll$ enough to rebrand as Democratic Socialists. They'd attract more Millennials and Gen Xers than you could imagine.

As I said, the Democratic party disagrees with your assessment. They are scared to death of being called "Democratic Socialists". I'm not sure if they wouldn't prefer to be called "Nazis". Left that off my list as well.

The Democratic Party often can't find its @ss with both hands. Messaging never a strong suit. So I'm not surprised.

As I said, the Democratic party disagrees with your assessment. They are scared to death of being called "Democratic Socialists".

Show what you know about the Democratic Party.

The times they are a changing.

The times are always changing.

Democrats are significantly more comfortable with the term socialism now compared to a decade ago, and a majority within the party hold a positive view of it.

Recent polling data from Gallup (published in September 2025 based on an August 2025 poll) highlights a notable shift in sentiment:
A majority of Democrats (66%) now have a positive view of socialism, up from 50% in 2010.
Only 42% of Democrats view capitalism favorably. Democrats are the only political group in the U.S. that views socialism more positively than capitalism.

news.gallup.com

#91 | Posted by donnerboy

"Democratic Socialism" is capitalism plus safety nets where no one starves, goes without medical care because they can't afford it, or be homeless.

Or, "Capitalism + What Jesus Said"

BTW, Marjorie Taylor Greene is waiting until a couple of days after January 5th to retire.

Why?

Because January 5th is the date she'll be eligible to collect a lifelong pension and health care.

"Recent polling data from Gallup (published in September 2025 based on an August 2025 poll) highlights a notable shift in sentiment:
A majority of Democrats (66%) now have a positive view of socialism, up from 50% in 2010.
Only 42% of Democrats view capitalism favorably. Democrats are the only political group in the U.S. that views socialism more positively than capitalism."

Yay!!!! A poll!!!!

The leaders in the Democratic Party have seen this. They initiated it.

It's a poll, big guy. But on election day, democrats will run from those terms.

Do you really think democrats understand what "socialism" even means?

Do you really think democrat voters won't be scared -------- of the term should a "socialist" be nominated for Federal office?

"The Times always changing".

I don't disagree but we are NOT where you think we are right now.

-"Democratic Socialism" is capitalism plus safety nets where no one starves, goes without medical care because they can't afford it, or be homeless.

No, it's breadlines, widespread poverty, and very weak safety nets.............once Elon Musk spends $400 million defining "Democratic Socialism" his way

Rather than spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to do nothing more than accurately defining a term that's being misrepresented.....maybe it's just easier to stay away from the term for now.

It's a poll, big guy. But on election day, democrats will run from those terms.

Yes it's a poll.

Which has more weight than your personal opinion

On Election Day they elected a socialist as mayor of New York City.
...

I don't disagree but we are NOT where you think we are right now.
#94 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Polls show that America definitely isn't where YOU think it is right now. Big guy.

maybe it's just easier to stay away from the term for now.

#95 | POSTED BY EBERLY

So stay out of New York I guess?

"Democrats are the only political group in the U.S. that views socialism more positively than capitalism."

^
This is a fun statement because it indicates there is no true Socialist Movement in the United States. Something every Democrat knows, while every Republican says Democrats are Socialists.

-So stay out of New York I guess?

No, I said Federal office. There are enclaves where the term isn't damaging.

-Polls show that America definitely isn't where YOU think it is right now. Big guy.

Tell that to Bernie Sanders.

Bernie will agree with me on where America is. Specifically, the Democratic party.

"On Election Day they elected a socialist as mayor of New York City."

To be clear, you're saying that this is evidence that The United States of America is embracing socialism? That the poll result you cited?

Boazboy is why the Democratic party loses so damn much.

I love that boaz posted this as if a bunch of fascist cult members condemning socialism actually says anything bad about socialism.

#101 The "Democratic party loses so damn much? Did you miss the news earlier this month?

-> Georgia voters ousted two Republican members of the state's Public Service Commission in favor of two Democrats"the first Democrats to win statewide nonfederal offices in decades.

-> Democrats in Mississippi Break the G.O.P.'s State House Supermajority

-> Every single county in Virginia - even deeply red counties - saw shifts TOWARDS the Democrats, as opposed to how they voted 1 year ago.

-> Dems flip Wichita School Board from a 4-3 GOP majority to a 5-2 Democratic majority. Democratic candidates Amy Warren and Amy Jensen defeated Republican incumbents Hazel Stabler and Kathy Bond.

-> In SD-9, another red district, we saw an 8 point shift for the Democrat

#94 Correct. A "socialist" can be elected mayor of NYC in 2025.

At the same time, the fact that Democrats in Mississippi broke the G.O.P.'s State House Supermajority - without a "socialist" on the ballot - proves what Tip O'Neil once said:

All politics is local.

That said, however, the fact that the Trump insists on providing the Democratic Party and their candidates (a "socialist" or an Abigail Spanberger) such free, in-kind contributions, only makes the job of local candidates (local, state, Congressional) that much easier.

103,

you're suggesting that's evidence we're going to elect a socialist for Federal Office?

My suggestion is that the efforts to win more local elections continue with more and more support. Maybe even try it in another major city.

"Argh! Stupid socialist Muslim antifa Marxist gun-hating Communist jihadists wanting affordability! Blargh!"

#105 A Federal Office?

You mean like congressperson or Senator?

Sure.

For POTUS, well, as you stated, not at this time.

But, you wisely amended that to agree with the fact that "The Times They Are A Changing."

Perhaps not in my lifetime.

Perhaps not in yours.

There was once a time when the idea of a person of color as president of the United States was unthinkable.

"The Times They Are A Changing."

107

agreed.

But I'm living forever........:-)

#108 Same here. I have always banked on the "fact" that medical science will always be one step ahead of my vices:

"A_Friend, you have [current disease du jour]. Here's a pill."

So, yeah... I'm going to live forever... too! :-)

I love that boaz posted this as if a bunch of fascist cult members condemning socialism actually says anything bad about socialism.
#102 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-11-24 05:33 PM

The newest voters are all Progressive.

They dispise the oligarchy.

The GOP is rightly doomed.

Bernie will agree with me on where America is. Specifically, the Democratic party.

#100 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I doubt it. America is not ready for a female president either. Doesn't mean they don't like females running things. Just not as President. Yet.

Democrats just can't move far enough to the left for Bernie.

Bernie is just impatient.

We'll get to a more perfect Union yet. In spite of ourselves. If we don't off ourselves first.

Baby steps.

The newest voters are all Progressive.

They dispise the oligarchy.

The GOP is rightly doomed.

#110 | Posted by redlightrobot

The podcast/crypto bros are not progressive. They are brainwashed by russian propaganda and vote for trump.

And fascists don't allow legitimate elections that would boot them from power.

The antiwar movement in the US is as old as the American Revolution and these progressives made their collective voice heard on Tuesday 5 Nov 1968, 5 Nov 2024, and on 4 Nov 2025.

-The newest voters are all Progressive.

That's been the case for a long time.

It's not remotely new. The Democratic Party routinely gains new younger voters and loses voters to the GOP at the same time.

The Democratic Party routinely gains new younger voters and loses voters to the GOP at the same time.

#114 | Posted by eberly

People became more conservative when they bought a home and had something to lose through "shaking up the system".

Only now young people can't afford homes. So they'll go from progressive to BURN IT ALL DOWN.

People became more conservative when they bought a home and had something to lose through "shaking up the system".
Only now young people can't afford homes. So they'll go from progressive to BURN IT ALL DOWN.
#115 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Well said.

Eberly brought kids into the first generation in American history that is not expected to out-perform their parents, economically speaking.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think that is a good enough world to bring any kids into.

Eberly brought kids into the first generation in American history that is not expected to out-perform their parents, economically speaking.
~ Snoofy

The majority of Americans think they're better off financially than their parents were"especially Gen Z
www.cnbc.com

Gen Z is richer than just a few years ago"and much richer than their parents at the same age"but everything costs more and they have more debt, Pew study
reveals
fortune.com

Perhaps you've bought into another lie DonoBot kicks around.

The biggest issues for younger generations is housing. This is where the Boomers locked out the other generations.

-Only now young people can't afford homes. So they'll go from progressive to BURN IT ALL DOWN.

Meaning what??

Literally setting fires? Protesting?

Or remaining loyal democratic voters?

Something else?

"Gen Z is richer than just a few years ago"and much richer than their parents at the same age"but everything costs more and they have more debt,"

I agree Gen Z have a tough road ahead for them. Wages compared to their debt and cost of living? It's bad.

Gen Z is richer than just a few years ago"and much richer than their parents at the same age"but everything costs more and they have more debt, Pew study
reveals
fortune.com

Perhaps you've bought into another lie DonoBot kicks around.

The biggest issues for younger generations is housing. This is where the Boomers locked out the other generations.

#117 | Posted by oneironaut

"RICHER" is a subjective term.

The data says they are struggling to provide a comfortable life much more than their parents did.
This data is called REAL WAGE DECLINE.
www.statista.com

-Only now young people can't afford homes. So they'll go from progressive to BURN IT ALL DOWN.
Meaning what??
Literally setting fires? Protesting?
Or remaining loyal democratic voters?
Something else?
#118 | Posted by eberly

This is what's already happened to MAGA Republicans.
They're desperate, they're angry, they know they have no future in the future economy.
MAGA Republicans voted for Trump and DOGE to burn it all down.

Do you not share this opinion?
Just look at the comments in any health care thread. Republicans are unanimous in saying let the subsidies end. That's a burn it all down sentiment, and if you can't see that, it's because you just can't see at all.

What young people want is as good a chance as you had.
That is not on the Republican menu, and it never has been in your lifetime, and you know it.

__________
#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-11-24 11:43 AM
My AI tells me that social welfare polices contribute to citizen well-being.

Countries often identified with socialist policies, like Finland, Denmark, and other Nordic nations, consistently rank high on happiness reports due to factors such as ... economic equality... While happiness is subjective and these nations have social democratic rather than purely socialist economies, the correlation is often cited .

That's "AI" problem.

Yes, "happiness" is very subjective, especially since the purported surveys don't really measure happiness - they derive single-number index ** from several categories and then try to "key in" (correlate) every year on "key subject", like age (2024), charity (2025) etc. - none of which is close to causation re happiness, let alone "socialism" - unless, of course, attempting to associate with or define "socialism" as "happy country" or "free, universal healthcare" and other random unrelated whatnots.

Here's just a few real correlations you can make just looking at couple of these lists:
1. Countries in the North (with long winters and snow) are much "happier" than countries in Africa (South)
2. Countries with a very small population (< 11M people) in peace are happier than the more populous countries at war. 3. Relatively small rich countries with mostly homogeneous population that didn't have to care much about rest of the world?

Is Sweden still "socialist" after becoming highest in Europe in wealth distribution inequality?
Why is "socialist" France (with lower inequality) ranked much lower than "socialist" Germany or "capitalist" US?

mieuxdonner.org - Report 2025

placebrandobserver.com - Report 2024

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-23 05:20 AM
Key ideas of socialism
Collective ownership
Wealth distribution
Social welfare
Government regulation

Variations of socialism
Democratic socialism
State socialism

So the "socialism" seems to be a basket of a lot of things that you can pick and choose from, depending on the argument:
"A rose of socialism (wherever we can find it and however we define it) by any other name is just as sweet"?

#120 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-11-24 11:17 PM
This data is called REAL WAGE DECLINE.
www.statista.com

The problem with this "DATA" is that it only goes from 2021 to 2024 - i.e., after COVID and Trump-Biden "Keynesian / trickle-up" stimuli and inevitable corresponding inflation - the phenomenon is not limited to the US - picking a short amount of time to make sweeping conclusions, especially in economics, during major crisis (like "gouging" and others at the time, which were easily proved wrong) is a fallacy known as "Faulty / Hasty Generalization".

#64 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-11-23 11:16 AM
We Americans are a very politically confused bunch of people.

Yes, we are... because we keep trying to define / call things which they're not.

Maybe it's education system, misinformation, biases, all of the above.

Or it's a "pursuit of happiness" ("Cantril Ladder" used by reports **) for those in the US who are convinced that "grass always greener" somewhere else, or would be different under a different "system".
www.nature.com - Cantril Ladder elicits thoughts about power and wealth (2024)
__________

__________
**
www.apa.org - Speaking of Psychology: Which countries are happiest and why?

|------- ... And usually each report has kind of a central focus or theme " this year's report being on age, which I imagine we'll get into " and kind of delves into some of the most recent evidence on the topic. And so each chapter might incorporate some of its own unique evidence, but the central theme and the workhorse, if you will, the data that is really influential and allows us to of evaluate the evidence from a global stance is that from the Gallup World Poll, because it is an incredible data source providing nationally representative samples of people from over 136 countries around the globe.

Mills: So how is happiness measured and defined in this report?

Aknin: Happiness is defined in the World Happiness Report through several different measures, but kind of the key guiding central measure that we prioritize and investigate very deeply in Chapter 2 of the report is people's satisfaction with life or life evaluations. And this is drawn primarily from one central question called the Cantril Ladder in which people are asked to imagine their best possible life or their life, excuse me, on a ladder with 11 rungs. Down at the very bottom is a zero, which is where people would say this is the worst possible life they can imagine. And up at the very top is the 10th rung, basically people imagining their best possible life. And so each person is asked to imagine where they put themselves right now on this hypothetical 11-rung ladder. ...
__________