Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-02, 11:18, said:
I said that I feared Common Core for reasons that the government would use it in a political way. That should have been enough, but one poster requested that I back up that argument. I tried to do that by stating my true belief that Hillary is trying to move the country toward socialism, for better or for worse; I think that many of our youth think it's for the better so she will get their full support, but I feel it's for the worse.
I stated my reasons for thinking that. Of course, as was to be expected, when I actually post links to articles, people say that the sites I linked to are unreliable nutjob sites.
Am I falling for something? Only time will tell. Hillary will probably be our president for the next eight years, and it should be pretty obvious whether I fell for something or whether I was right and you all fell for something. I sincerely hope I am wrong here because I love our country. And while Donald Trump is likely to be a total disaster, we are still likely to have a democratic republic when he is finished. However, when I look at the last line of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:
and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
I don't think the government as the Founding Fathers intended it will perish under Trump but I fear that it might under Hillary.
Again, I hope I am wrong, because we are very likely going to have Hillary Clinton as our president, and you all, who are mostly very smart people, seem to think that she will do a fine job, and either do not fear a move toward socialism, or support it.
If you support it, let's just agree to disagree. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours because we're talking fundamental beliefs here.
If you don't support socialism but don't fear that Hillary will move in that direction, then you can feel good that much of the country feels the same as you do, and if you are correct, then I will be proven wrong in eight years. For the sake of our country, that is really the best scenario because I can't see much good coming from a Trump administration. However, if you feel I am falling for something ridiculous, you will be surprised how many other are falling for it too - Donald Trump will get at least 40% of the popular vote in all likelihood.
For those of you who do support socialism, let me tell you a story which I believe to be true (but it might be some nutjob site propaganda!) A professor of a course on political ideologies gave his first test. Some students studied like hell and got an A, and others slacked off and got an F. The professor announced that since he was currently teaching socialism, he would share the grades equally among the students, so they all got a C. The next exam, fewer studied and the result was a D- for everybody. The third exam, those who worked hard realized the futility of their efforts and nobody passed so the entire class got an F. When the professor asked the class if they wanted him to grade in a manner more consistent with capitalism, the answer was a resounding yes - even the slackoffs didn't want to screw their classmates.
I have put quite of bit of thought into it and have read much of the liberal argument. To me, it is not convincing. I've tried to weigh the evidence on both sides and after doing that, it appears from where I'm sitting that the Breitbarts of the world have it right. However, it doesn't bother me when people try to convince me that I'm wrong, for I realize I might be wrong. But none of us have all the information and I easily could be the most correct too. There are issues that I have taken a softer stance on after considering the liberal position. For example, I am not nearly as dismissive of the man-made climate change argument as practically every other conservative in America, and that comes from reading both sides' arguments and trying to think critically about each one.
You claim to be willing to see both sides of an argument, but all you do, repetitively, is spout right wing talking points as if they were valid arguments or valid facts.
Your story about the grades is almost surely false, if only because it reflects a right-wing delusional idea about socialism. That you are delusional on the topic is also evident from your fear that Clinton will create a socialist society but that Trump, for all his failings, will honour the ideals of democracy. Whoa!
I won't spend much time on Trump other than to point out that he has a very strong authoritarian streak in him, and thinks that Putin and Assad and Saddam and even that wingnut in North Korea are better, stronger leaders than Obama. I wasn't previously aware that those were democratic leaders.
More to the point, your belief that Clinton would impose socialism reflects three delusions. One is with respect to the power of the Presidency in your country. One cannot possibly create a socialist country through executive action: it would come about, if at all, through legislative action and the President has no power to create legislation. At most the President can enlist allies in Congress to draft and put forward legislation. Do you seriously think that Congress would do so?
The second one is that there is literally NO evidence that Clinton is a socialist. In fact, it is arguable that Sanders, who loves to call himself one, isn't either. But that is beside the point. Clinton, and the Democratic platform (which is never going to become law anyway and reflects the wishes of those zealous enough to get involved (in the same way that the more abhorrent parts of the Republican platform are never going to be enacted even with a Trump presidency and republican control of Congress)isn't socialist and doesn't come close to espousing a socialist philosophy.
I know, you probably believe that Obama is a socialist. You may even question whether he is a citizen....I'd guess that you claim that you don't really think he isn't but that one can never be sure. And of course that has nothing to do with the colour of his skin or his name...after all, you aren't a racist...we know that because you say it with such assurance.
Both of these delusions, and especially the one about Clinton being a socialist, stem from a third and most insidious delusion or, more accurately, a commonly-shared ignorance amongst most Americans, especially right wing Americans.
The problem lies in the use of 'socialist' as an insult, going back one hundred years or so, exacerbated by the fact that the Soviets liked to call themselves socialists, and thus socialism became associated with fear of communism.
There are very few (I think the number is likely zero) socialist countries in the world. I know of none within the western world. However, a lot of Western European countries have systems, and popular political parties, that reflect the principles of Social Democracy, which does take some ideas from socialism.
For example, nationalized health care (the bizarre notion that access to health care should, in a rich country, be universal) is both socialistic and a tenet of social democracy. So to the extent that Clinton would like to see a single payer system enacted, one could say that she is supporting one socialistic idea. Of course, she isn't saying that, because experience suggests that the grip of the for-profit health care system on the (ill-informed) US population isn't about to lose its strength anytime soon. But I accept that, being an intelligent woman, she may well support it.
The major tenet of socialism is government ownership of the major means of production of resources and goods! Where is the actual evidence that ANY Democratic politician supports, for example, the nationalization of Apple, or Google, or GM, or Ford, or Esso, or....the list goes on.
In reality, as opposed to the right wing bubble in which you appear to live, Clinton would be seen in most advanced countries as a centrist, and (as with Obama) slightly to the right of centre.
To return to your story, I suppose it is possible that some idiot somewhere (and possession of a PhD is no assurance that the holder is not an idiot)might have done something like this, tho I strongly doubt it. However, such would in no way reflect the principles behind socialism, and only someone who has never bothered to try to think for herself would think otherwise. There are good sources available in your public library. There are even good sources available online, tho a very large number of them are in fact websites promoting the nonsense in which you seem to believe. For instance, I doubt that you would learn any reality by going to Breitbart to look it up, lol. However, my description of what socialism means is something that is readily verifiable if you are willing to filter out the right wing loonies. Hint: anyone who says that Obama is a socialist is a right wing loonie.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
