Red State vs Blue State -- drawing battlelines?

.The range extends from social democracy ...

quote:

---

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy; and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europeparticularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countriesduring the latter half of the 20th century.[4][5]

---

(Which is what Bernie was advocating (universal healthcare, tuition free college, living minimum wage, etc) and it also applies to what FDR did.)... to Democratic socialism

quote:

---

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist—Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic in practice.[1] "Democratic socialism" is also sometimes used as a synonym for social democracy, although many say this is misleading as democratic socialism advocates social ownership of the means of production, whereas social democracy does not.[2]

---

and even here "social ownership" is not necessarily "the state" as it could be worker owned cooperatives run democratically by the workers, the key being the type of "socialist economic system" being used:

quote:

---

Socialism (economic system)

​

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.[1][2][3][4][5][6] "Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[7] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[8] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][9][10]

​

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[11] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets, money and financial decisions for managing the economy with engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind, thereby functioning according to different economic laws than those of capitalism with an economic mechanism that circumvents the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially-owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them, with the profits accruing to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workers of each firm.[20][21][22] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

---

So we can have socialist market democracy within each blue state without taking over the means of production by the states, merely by advancing the use of worker coops run democratically by the workers within a capitalist framework, and by having social safety nets, from guaranteed living wage to universal healthcare, plus programs designed to enhance peoples lives, like free local (community) college and trade schools and affordable housing and daycare. (see Minnesota)While red states would be free to pursue pure market driven economy and capitalist concentration of wealth at the top with no safety nets for the working poor, the elimination of the middle class and everyone for themselves. (see Wisconsin) Indeed. There is a lot of support for universal healthcare and for a living minimum wage across the political lines, as there is for rational gun restrictions and a tax system that does not favor the rich.Enjoy

I am going to guess that at no time in history did Christianity have the strength that you are talking about. According to you, you are the only "True Christian" in existence.

As the Democratic party is constituted now, yes it was. It was LBJ who signed the Civli Rights Act into law. We have had public schools for over 100 years now. Public works, by their very definition, are socialist. If you paid for healthcare with your tax dollars, would you be fine with it?

What anti-capitalist policies are you talking about?

Yea but there are plenty of countries considered socialist and they dont have any large stakes in its economies businesses. I think you will find that the whole country run production is an exception rather then the rule. The main thing about socialism in practice is drawing a line on the minimual standard of living. I might be a conspiracy theorist but i think the CIA tried to equate socialism to communism because of marks.but i get why its a shade of red though more on the pinkish side Thing is i dont get it these massive cooperation's buy your goverment officials, laugh at your regulations, poison your watter and air. And when someone says guys your doing a lot of damage get huge profits you should pay a larger share, we will use it to heal the people corporation's poison, to feed the people cooperation's pay to little to live on, and to educate them so they dont have to get screwed by cooperation's as much. A bunch of people who would benefit the most from this, and usually dont have to dimes to rub together come out screaming fucking commies leave our poor rich people alone they trickle down on us

No, but the Republicans who ended slavery were the progressives of their time, and the certainly the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not conservative policy by any current measure. Just what political label would you apply to those Dixiecrats of the 1950s and 60s. Certainly not "liberal".

I'm not interested in getting into all the side issues. I said simply that I often wish we could split the country because of the polarization that has come to a boiling point with this election. For saying that I got the usual accusation of racism in the form of asking if I want to go back to segregation, that sprt pf accusation being one of the "progressive" tactics that is a major reason I would like to split the country.ABE: Oh and the other utterly wrongheaded responses about the public schools and public works. It's SO tiresome. Yes if we split the country maybe my country could have public schools that don't indoctrinate our children in leftist propaganda; and we'd certainly have taxpayer-funded public works because that is NOT progressive/socialist but a normal function of government.The more I hear stuff like that the more I want to split the country. In either sense of the term.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What makes you think that the polarisation would be stopped by a split ? The Right is too dominated by hatred and lies at this point to just stop. Sure, you'll get the repressive tyranny you want, but who are you going to blame for all the social ills that will inevitably afflict the Red states ?

Just not having to listen to vicious crackpot accusations like yours would be worth any risks. As usual the hate is shown to come from your side. And the lies. Not to have to be governed by people of such hateful attitudes would be bliss.RAZD had an idea about how it might be possible to avoid having to live by the odious red state policies he abhors and set up a political entity that could be governed by principles he prefers. I thought that was an interesting idea and I would really like to be able to do the same based on red state principles. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In other words your Red State will be thoroughly repressive. Genuinely "vicious crackpot accusations" - like the "pizzagate" mess will be freely made and nobody will be permitted to disagree with them.

quote:

---

RAZD had an idea about how it might be possible to avoid having to live by the odious red state policies he abhors and set up a political entity that could be governed by principles he prefers. I thought that was an interesting idea and I would really like to be able to do the same based on red state principles.

---

And part of the point of the proposal is that the Red States are the poorest , and therefore get net assistance from the Federal Government - they are subsidised by the Blue States. On that factor alone life would get worse in the Red States even without the policies which will increase inequality and poverty.And my point is that the Red States would never accept responsibility for those consequences and - given the hate from the Right - there is little reason to doubt that some of that hate would be directed at the Blue States, perhaps even to the point of another civil war.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your hateful lying speculations and accusations. I also have no interest in discussing any of this with bigots like you. I have no doubt that just getting free of evil blue policies would free us red staters to build a healthy nation.

And there you go proving my point. Rather than accept the reality you direct false accusations against anyone who points out the truth.And if the Red State policies don't work - and policies based on ideology rather than reality don't have a good record - do you really think that you would admit that ?

It would be really nice if Trump could accomplish what he says he wants to do, bring us all together. Maybe he can if he is able to bring prosperity to the nation and provide for workers and poor people. I hope he can.Right now, however, what we are seeing is all this horrific violence against those who voted for Trump. That's ALL coming from the Left, it's a product of Leftist ideology that somehow gives a sense of entitlement to get your way against the views and desires of the other half of the population. A completely unAmerican attitude. No doubt provoked and engineered by people behind the scenes, but also brought about by decades of Leftist brainwashing in the universities, by the Postmodern destruction of all moral standards, by such immoral Machiavellian propaganda as Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.The American founders knew that America could only survive if its people were moral, as John Adams said: With people rioting because they didn't win the election we can hardly say we are a moral and religious people any more.
:
What with doctrines like Postmodernism and Rules for Radicals and the willingness to break our laws to bring in illegals, threatening electors to force them to vote against Trump against the will of the people, the rejection of the Ten Commandments which are a pretty basic list of moral precepts without which a society can't survive long, maybe I should just give up. There is simply no solution to such a situation.We can't even have fun imagining how to set up a coalition of states that follow our own political views. It becomes ugly and mean.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Back in the day, Israel wanted a Messiah who could do the same thing...but they rejected Jesus beacause Jesus kingdom and purpose was not of this world. They placed their hope on worldly kings. Focus on Jesus and not Trump. Trump won't lead us to the promised land any more than any of Israels Kings could do.

You are quite right, Phat, Trump can't do anything unless God is with him. That's why we have to pray for him.