US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3585

On April 12 2016 01:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The rigging talk start around 2:50 - Delegates and Super Delegates are a terrible system..

The Spanish-language voter guides from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's office include two errors about registering to vote in the state, while the English guides do not include the same errors.

The Spanish-language guides said that voters could register up to 15 days before the election, while the English version included the correct deadline, 21 days before the election, as the Daily Kos flagged last week. And while the English guides told voters they could use their passport as a photo ID, the guides in Spanish did not include a passport in the list.

Kobach is notorious for his push to enact strict voter ID laws in the state, impose other voting restrictions, and pursue criminal prosecutions of alleged voting fraud. Kansas faces several challenges to its law requiring proof of citizenship for residents to register to vote.

Craig McCullah, the official in charge of publications for the Kansas secretary of state, claimed responsibility and said that the office would correct the errors, according to the Kansas City Star.

"It was an administrative error that I am diligently working to fix," he said.

McCullah said that the online version of the guide has already been corrected and that they are working to print corrected guides as well.

On April 12 2016 01:03 corumjhaelen wrote:
Socialism in general certainly doesn't reject private property, it calls for the common ownership of the means of production. Anyway your article is full of very classic stupid arguments or bad in their form, but I guess if you posted it there's not much point discussing it in the first place.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Source

On April 12 2016 01:15 Ghanburighan wrote:


Something something Marx abolition of private property:



Look, if you want to have a discussion about the merits of socialism, you can do that by showing faults with the arguments themselves, but if your only aim is to call me "stupid" then it just seems quite pointless.

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Attlee's government also carried out their manifesto commitment for nationalisation of basic industries and public utilities. The Bank of England and civil aviation were nationalised in 1946. Coal mining, the railways, road haulage, canals and Cable and Wireless were nationalised in 1947, electricity and gas followed in 1948. The steel industry was nationalised in 1951. By 1951 about 20% of the British economy had been taken into public ownership.

On April 12 2016 01:15 Ghanburighan wrote:


Something something Marx abolition of private property:



Look, if you want to have a discussion about the merits of socialism, you can do that by showing faults with the arguments themselves, but if your only aim is to call me "stupid" then it just seems quite pointless.

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”
Source

On April 12 2016 01:41 farvacola wrote:
Given that numerous states have implemented broadly socialistic policies (Vermont and Massachusetts immediately come to mind) that are very much a part of political discourse today given Sanders' relative popularity, the idea that socialism ought not be discussed in this thread for lack of relevance is simply incorrect barring a total lack of nuance. Yes, Socialism is unlikely to take hold in the US relative to an all-encompassing socio-governmental program, but the specific tenets behind particular markets and the propriety of their socialization is not only relevant but very compelling given the trajectory of both state and national government.

On April 12 2016 01:38 Ghanburighan wrote:
Kwark your attempt at patronizing me is hilarious in how off mark you are. This might not be obvious, but this isn't the terminology that was used in the USSR. In fact, I've been educated nearly entirely in "the West" as you call it. I think you just don't know your history. Studying socialism in philosophy starts with More and Marx/Engels. I would know because I took those courses in several universities. But I don't need to argue in this way, let's just see what "the West" thinks socialism is. You're from the UK, aren't you. How about we check Encyclopedia Britannica?



Shall I give you more sources? Or will you withdraw your ludicrous and frankly insulting slander.

On April 12 2016 01:44 KwarK wrote:

So the British Labour party never met your definition of Socialist?

As the U.S. presidential sweepstakes lurch toward November, a chill is running through the global space community.

Space professionals worldwide remember the upset that followed President Barack Obama’s arrival in the White House in 2009, and they are worried that history will repeat itself when President Clinton, Cruz, Kasich, Sanders or Trump takes over the Oval Office next January. That unease certainly extends into the ninth-floor offices of the NASA administrator, and other headquarters areas where top agency managers have spent the past seven years forging a way forward following the abrupt change in direction codified in the “compromise of 2010” after Obama killed the Constellation Program of exploration vehicles.

Last month, a coalition of more than a dozen academic and industrial organizations launched a call for space-policy continuity into the election, and not just at the presidential level. “We need to continue on a sort of straight-line target,” says former astronaut Sandra Magnus, executive director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). “We can’t keep moving left and right, left and right in our industry.”

For now, NASA is entrusting the job of making space-policy stability an election issue to the groups in the coalition and others like them. “To my knowledge we’re not talking to anybody right now,” says Administrator Charles Bolden, who has confined his politicking to selling NASA’s fiscal year 2017 budget request on Capitol Hill. “We’re staying away from campaigns, and no one has reached out to us.”

But by the end of July, when the two major U.S. political parties will have presumably nominated their presidential candidates, NASA and other federal agencies will be required by law to provide transition information “on an equal basis and without regard to political affiliation.” The agency has appointed a senior manager to pull together the briefing books, and Bolden has a clear idea of the message he wants those to convey.

On April 12 2016 01:47 Ghanburighan wrote:


Not even under Foot.

Labour quite literally ate up some socialist parties (can't remember their names) but because it encompasses so many different movements it was never socialist.