The Mango Mussilini will sign it

Sometimes you have to pick your battles.  Personally this is a battle I would choose to fight if I were Trump.  Also, exactly what "Mussolini" type dictatorial, and fascist actions has Trump committed for you to use that description of him.  I know its a joke, but at least when we called Obama a communist we had a track record of his to justify that moniker. 

So what I just heard is that Trumps first quarter was the worst since Obama's....recovery?

Lol, world's top scientists....

Now don't laugh at our scientists.

Most of them have triple digit IQs.

Ok, a lot to discuss here,  I'll try to hit it all.

Paul, I gave you a "Like" on that one because it's such a well argued and articulated position, not because I specifically agree with everything in there. I wish this site had different types of like/agree/dislike buttons. I'll respond more later, but traveling for the next couple of days.

The last part in that video says it all:  Castro's personal worth was $900,000,000 when he died.  Those who enforce socialism are fucking hypocrites.

Nice conversation, but it has nothing to do with socialism.

I'll get it back on topic and answer the thread question to boot:

Socialist = thief + coward

Provide them with enough resources to not force them into a life of crime, and opportunities for those who are able to become productive members of society to do so.

This has nothing to do with being altruistic or charitable, but acknowledging the fact that there are people who just has nothing to offer to society. Whether they are born incapable, rendered incapable, lazy or otherwise unmotivated, or have skills that are simply obsolete.

We've always had a society where there are individuals who do not contribute. We're always going to have that. We can chose to deal with them as criminals if we want, and confine them to prison or forced labor... but that costs the same as just supplying basic resources outright in the first place. If that even worked I would be all for it. But it doesn't.

In the end I just want to be left alone to live my life in peace. I don't want to be surrounded by people who have basic needs but not means - because that impacts my safety, and frankly my lifestyle. If that implies paying another 5% in taxes, then so be it. I'm either going to write them a check, or I'm going to write a check to someone else to protect me against them. But either way, they're not going to go away.

This is the biggest canard of all time. There are places around this country with more severe poverty than you will ever see in some inner cities.  Yet they aren't riddled with people committed to a life of crime. Look at rural Appalachia, Mississippi, and elsewhere.

So what "resources" do the poor need that they don't have today so as to prevent them from becoming habitual criminals?  More Obama phones?  More TVs?  More air conditioning?  Relax the food stamp rules so they can buy booze? 

Your line of thinking is precisely why we are $20 trillion in debt, with no end in site to deficit spending so that politicians can say "Look, we did something. Now give me your vote."

a) Kill the unemployables outright
b) Tax the employable people and give the unemployables a basic income
c) Have the unemployables starve to death and secure yourself against uprising by using deadly force
d) Regulate industry and force them to hire otherwise unemployables, even though automation is cheaper (i.e. Tax the corporations).


Capitalists favor (c) and (d).

It accomplishes the same thing in the end.

First, welcome.
Second; You are so full of shit.