My weekly political vlog for the College Republicans

[Erika1487]

Well after a a long night thinking about it, I have decided to share some of my day job with the Poltical fourm. As many of you know I work for the GOP during the day as detransitioned male, and am in the process of making a weekly video blog for my CR Chapter which I chair at the University of Rio Grande, in Rio Grande Ohio, it is not the only GOP work I do, but rather just a slice of what my public political life is like.
I have also decided to stop posting in the general discussion fourm and will use this thread and other politcal threads from now on, I guess its a hard lesson learned.

Oh a quick note about my video blogs I will always have a chest binder and jacket 2 sizes to large to help conceal my breasts,I also try to keep a days worth beard growth to look mor masculine. It's the most comfortable thing I have found and hide me well.

Now to politics

My frist topic Is Ohio Issue 2 which was Ohio Senate Bill 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E04VhAuIh4c

Ohio's economic recovery begins with reclaiming our schools, respecting our taxpayers and restoring our jobs. State Issue 2 gives us some very reasonable opportunities to do just that.

On Tuesday, November 8th, vote YES on State Issue 2.


My second topic is who I and the many folks in my chapter are currently supporting for the upcoming Ohio Republican Presidental Primary

Currently Myself, and the chapter are supporting Bachmann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hc_Hm94hv0&feature=related

Michele Bachmann is a principled reformer who holds an unwavering commitment to the conservative values that helped her succeed as a small business owner, a U.S. tax attorney, a state and federal lawmaker, and a wife and mother. She is a Constitutional conservative who understands that our Founding Fathers established a federal government to preserve and protect the nation while fostering an environment where dreams could flourish. It is Michele's single greatest calling in public service to ensure that the liberties enshrined in our founding documents are handed down from this generation to the next.

[yodajazz]

I have to commend you, for the sharing of yourself, here. However, I believe it may become stressful defending your beliefs, in a place often naturally skeptical of conservative ideas. Rather posting here, I suggest you should tackle something a little less stressful, such a being a 'lion tamer'. Plus, such a occupation could help you gain, skills to deal with the crowd here.

But for the sake of discussion, what exactly are the "conservative values", that helped Michelle Bachman to succeed? I have a feeling, that what helped her succeed, are not traits exclusive to conservatives.

[Erika1487]

I have to commend you, for the sharing of yourself, here. However, I believe it may become stressful defending your beliefs, in a place often naturally skeptical of conservative ideas. Rather posting here, I suggest you should tackle something a little less stressful, such a being a 'lion tamer'. Plus, such a occupation could help you gain, skills to deal with the crowd here.

But for the sake of discussion, what exactly are the "conservative values", that helped Michelle Bachman to succeed? I have a feeling, that what helped her succeed, are not traits exclusive to conservatives.

First of all yoda jazz let me thank you for responding. I always enjoy our disscussions :)

To me personally it's the loving relationship she has with her natural family and her foster children. She did an interveiw a recently explaining her position
on her foster children.
Bachmann: Yes, most certainly. We have broken hearts for at-risk kids. We were juggling toddlers already at home, but we saw another couple at church who were foster parents and we asked ourselves whether we could open our home and our hearts to foster children as well.

We never set out to take in 23 children, but children continued to need homes, so we continued to open our home to them.

Many children in the foster care system are often in the midst of a family challenge. Marcus and I sought to assist families during difficult times. We aren’t perfect people, nor are we a perfect family, but these children didn’t expect us to be either. They needed a loving home and care, and we tried our best every single day

I met her in person a while back and this is the person I met,
a caring loving mother, not some one who is "controled by her handlers" Although I will say that she does look like she is becoming more that way, but on a pesonal level she seems like a decent person.

[Stavros]

Erika, if decency is such an important factor, Obama scores as much as Michele Bachmann: he is a loving husband and father, and I don't think his public speeches have ever stooped as low as some Republicans, one of whom the other day derided a public official's fiscal policy as 'Treason'. Even if you take away the tea, as it were, you don't have much reason left in a statement like that.

I have no problem with the Republican Party, which appeals to a broad section of the American public of whatever colour, creed or sexual orientation they might be; I have no problem with Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin for that matter, as women, as people. I don't have a vote, but I have an opinion, and what I would ask is this

-are you sincerely going to sit by a phone in Michele Bachmann's campaign office and solicit money from voters for a candidate who damns you for what you really are?

You offer a robust promotion of Republican policy in Ohio, but offer no robust defence of yourself; you praise Michele Bachmann's fidelity to the Constitution, but seem afraid to implement your rights as a citizen under that same Constitution. I know that you have made a courageous personal decision that many could not handle; and I know that 'coming out' can be profound for some where it seems easy for others. However, you are not flipping burgers in McDonalds, you have entered politics, a minefield on which you are taking risks in a world which takes no prisoners.

I would respectfully ask you to reflect on the fact that rights in your Constitution had to be fought for before they became matters of daily fact in law; that the Stonewall riot in 1968 was as important for civil rights as the March on Washington in 1963. Stonewall, like no other event in US history, was made by transgendered people. It was a turning point for gay activists as well as for society as a whole, and resonated around the world, yet another example of America leading where others merely follow. And yet, the mainstream 'gay community' rapidly dominated the discourse and the political agenda, and marginalised the 'men in frocks' they loathed -Sylvia Rivera's moving testimony in Martin Duberman's book Stonewall, to her difficult life and the trauma of both creating an opening at Stonewall and then being 'disenfranchised', underlines the depth of the struggle for constitutional rights that the transgendered still face today.

Which of the candidates in 2012 is going to promote, defend -or even mention rights for transgendered people? None of them. You claim at one point to be in transition; at another you 'de-transition' -these are personal issues you have to deal with, but when it comes to political activism on behalf of specific candidates who have a policy platform you have yet to defend, I think you should choose more wisely. You have an opportunity to open a discourse on sexuality in the Republican Party, where issues of gender seem to generate more heat than light. Its your choice.

[Erika1487]

Erika, if decency is such an important factor, Obama scores as much as Michele Bachmann: he is a loving husband and father, and I don't think his public speeches have ever stooped as low as some Republicans, one of whom the other day derided a public official's fiscal policy as 'Treason'. Even if you take away the tea, as it were, you don't have much reason left in a statement like that.

I have no problem with the Republican Party, which appeals to a broad section of the American public of whatever colour, creed or sexual orientation they might be; I have no problem with Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin for that matter, as women, as people. I don't have a vote, but I have an opinion, and what I would ask is this

-are you sincerely going to sit by a phone in Michele Bachmann's campaign office and solicit money from voters for a candidate who damns you for what you really are?

You offer a robust promotion of Republican policy in Ohio, but offer no robust defence of yourself; you praise Michele Bachmann's fidelity to the Constitution, but seem afraid to implement your rights as a citizen under that same Constitution. I know that you have made a courageous personal decision that many could not handle; and I know that 'coming out' can be profound for some where it seems easy for others. However, you are not flipping burgers in McDonalds, you have entered politics, a minefield on which you are taking risks in a world which takes no prisoners.

I would respectfully ask you to reflect on the fact that rights in your Constitution had to be fought for before they became matters of daily fact in law; that the Stonewall riot in 1968 was as important for civil rights as the March on Washington in 1963. Stonewall, like no other event in US history, was made by transgendered people. It was a turning point for gay activists as well as for society as a whole, and resonated around the world, yet another example of America leading where others merely follow. And yet, the mainstream 'gay community' rapidly dominated the discourse and the political agenda, and marginalised the 'men in frocks' they loathed -Sylvia Rivera's moving testimony in Martin Duberman's book Stonewall, to her difficult life and the trauma of both creating an opening at Stonewall and then being 'disenfranchised', underlines the depth of the struggle for constitutional rights that the transgendered still face today.

Which of the candidates in 2012 is going to promote, defend -or even mention rights for transgendered people? None of them. You claim at one point to be in transition; at another you 'de-transition' -these are personal issues you have to deal with, but when it comes to political activism on behalf of specific candidates who have a policy platform you have yet to defend, I think you should choose more wisely. You have an opportunity to open a discourse on sexuality in the Republican Party, where issues of gender seem to generate more heat than light. Its your choice.

Hello Stavros thank you for responding.
well I think that Obama is a good father and husband I have never said anything against him for that. I do think it is an enduring for Bachmann to have such a family and still keep a professinonal life.
Having a big faimly is a christian conservative value that many in my part of Southeast Ohio can relate too.

are you sincerely going to sit by a phone in Michele Bachmann's campaign office and solicit money from voters for a candidate who damns you for what you really are? You offer a robust promotion of Republican policy in Ohio, but offer no robust defence of yourself; you praise Michele Bachmann's fidelity to the Constitution, but seem afraid to implement your rights as a citizen under that same Constitution

That's a tuff one.... I think that by choice of working for the party threre is an element that would throw me in a "Re-Education Camp" if they knew the real me, but believe there are more and more GLTB Republican voters who care about fiscal issues so much they are willing to put up with the "old dinosaurs of the party"as the younger genaration is just waiting them out.
I don't think Bachmann is one of the "old dinosaurs" ,but she plays up her christian base hard at times. If she wins the GOP Primary and is the offical GOP canidate I will support her, but hold my nose at times. I believe that in the primary's most canidates are waaayyy futher right and when the general election comes around moves closer to the center.

I agree with the statement on Stonewall, but most places that have "pride parades" that are stonewall oganizations are so far to the left that I feel out of place.

[yodajazz]

First of all yoda jazz let me thank you for responding. I always enjoy our disscussions :)

To me personally it's the loving relationship she has with her natural family and her foster children. She did an interveiw a recently explaining her position
on her foster children.
Bachmann: Yes, most certainly. We have broken hearts for at-risk kids. We were juggling toddlers already at home, but we saw another couple at church who were foster parents and we asked ourselves whether we could open our home and our hearts to foster children as well.

We never set out to take in 23 children, but children continued to need homes, so we continued to open our home to them.

Many children in the foster care system are often in the midst of a family challenge. Marcus and I sought to assist families during difficult times. We aren’t perfect people, nor are we a perfect family, but these children didn’t expect us to be either. They needed a loving home and care, and we tried our best every single day

I met her in person a while back and this is the person I met,
a caring loving mother, not some one who is "controled by her handlers" Although I will say that she does look like she is becoming more that way, but on a pesonal level she seems like a decent person.

Okay, it seems that Ms Bachman has some admirable qualities on a personal level, and is also attractive, in my book. However, I fail to see where these qualities you mentioned, express conservative values. Or I might better say, ideas exclusive to conservatives. Isn't "assisting families during difficult times", something so called liberals, and big government might do? Do you have any idea, how she may have felt about the debate, on extending unemployment benefits, during this past Christmas season? That would show whether those personal values extended to policy issues.

[Faldur]

how she may have felt about the debate, on extending unemployment benefits, during this past Christmas season?

That would have been a great question to see answered by the field in the debate.

[Erika1487]

Okay, it seems that Ms Bachman has some admirable qualities on a personal level, and is also attractive, in my book. However, I fail to see where these qualities you mentioned, express conservative values. Or I might better say, ideas exclusive to conservatives. Isn't "assisting families during difficult times", something so called liberals, and big government might do? Do you have any idea, how she may have felt about the debate, on extending unemployment benefits, during this past Christmas season? That would show whether those personal values extended to policy issues.

Bachmann is a Lutheran and Having a big faimly is a christian conservative value that many in my part of Southeast Ohio can relate too.

know to unemployment benefits Bachmann is a fiscal conservative who takes a pretty hard line on the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXPnGf6XcUQ&feature=player_embedded

I am not so sure this is the right thing, I think for the folks who have been unemployed more than 99 weeks maybe some Retraining for a new job or certfication may be needed.

[Stavros]

For someone who wavers on some issues, I am puzzled by your support for Ms Bachmann -all this stuff about families and faith is shared by candidates because they have to present this image to the electorate -can you imagine any candidate stating publicy I don't like children -? But other than tax cuts, I dont see what it is that your want from a Republican legislature. There are times over here when we tend to see Democrats and Republicans as two parts of one political machine...

[Yvonne183]

For someone who wavers on some issues, I am puzzled by your support for Ms Bachmann -all this stuff about families and faith is shared by candidates because they have to present this image to the electorate -can you imagine any candidate stating publicy I don't like children -? But other than tax cuts, I dont see what it is that your want from a Republican legislature. There are times over here when we tend to see Democrats and Republicans as two parts of one political machine...


Yea,,, yeah,, finally I agree with Starvos, democrats,,, republicans,, same shit.

[Erika1487]

For someone who wavers on some issues, I am puzzled by your support for Ms Bachmann -all this stuff about families and faith is shared by candidates because they have to present this image to the electorate -can you imagine any candidate stating publicy I don't like children -? But other than tax cuts, I dont see what it is that your want from a Republican legislature. There are times over here when we tend to see Democrats and Republicans as two parts of one political machine...

I think you are a little confused Stavros.

The Republican party has about four basic political types.
1)The Old School conservative
2)The Christian Right
3)The economic conservative but social moderate
4)The economic moderate social liberal. (refered to as Blue Rhino)

The Deomocratic Party has about four basic Political types also.

1)Pure social Liberal
2) Socialist
3) Social Liberal economic moderate
4) Social moderate/conservative econnomic moderate (refered to as Blue Dog)


All come from different areas of the country and represent different types of Republicans & Democracts. What really gets confusing for non-Americans is that many types of Democracts blend in with the political ideaology of Republicans.

[robertlouis]

I think you are a little confused Stavros.

The Republican party has about four basic political types.
1)The Old School conservative
2)The Christian Right
3)The economic conservative but social moderate
4)The economic moderate social liberal. (refered to as Blue Rhino)

The Deomocratic Party has about four basic Political types also.

1)Pure social Liberal
2) Socialist
3) Social Liberal economic moderate
4) Social moderate/conservative econnomic moderate (refered to as Blue Dog)


All come from different areas of the country and represent different types of Republicans & Democracts. What really gets confusing for non-Americans is that many types of Democracts blend in with the political ideaology of Republicans.

That's a helpful analysis, Erika, and thank you. The only part I'd take issue with is your assertion that "many types of democrats blend in with the political ideology of Republicans."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that there's a fairly large area - as in any venn diagram - where interests overlap, and that there are aspects of both parties' policies and ideology where voters from both parties can broadly agree. Thus, aside from the not inconsiderable genuinely independent vote, those who find themselves in that middle ground are the perennial swing voters on whose decisions the outcome of elections generally depends. Fair?

[Erika1487]

That's a helpful analysis, Erika, and thank you. The only part I'd take issue with is your assertion that "many types of democrats blend in with the political ideology of Republicans."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that there's a fairly large area - as in any venn diagram - where interests overlap, and that there are aspects of both parties' policies and ideology where voters from both parties can broadly agree. Thus, aside from the not inconsiderable genuinely independent vote, those who find themselves in that middle ground are the perennial swing voters on whose decisions the outcome of elections generally depends. Fair?

That would be a fair analogy. He is a good example of the
"Blended political idealology" Look at the Second Amendment of our Constitution

Democracts from mostly the southern states will always vote Social moderate/conservative (refered to as Blue Dog) and will join with Republicans on the issue.
1)The Old School conservative
2)The Christian Right
3)The economic conservative but social moderate

where as the The economic moderate social liberal Republican (refered to as Blue Rhino)
Will tend to vote alnong the lines ofthese Democracts on the issue.
1)Pure social Liberal
2) Socialist
3) Social Liberal economic moderate

[robertlouis]

That would be a fair analogy. He is a good example of the
"Blended political idealology" Look at the Second Amendment of our Constitution

Democracts from mostly the southern states will always vote Social moderate/conservative (refered to as Blue Dog) and will join with Republicans on the issue.
1)The Old School conservative
2)The Christian Right
3)The economic conservative but social moderate

where as the The economic moderate social liberal Republican (refered to as Blue Rhino)
Will tend to vote alnong the lines ofthese Democracts on the issue.
1)Pure social Liberal
2) Socialist
3) Social Liberal economic moderate

Thanks again Ericka. That tallies more or less with my understanding. The one word that leaps out from it, however, is "socialist". Genuine socialists in the US have been pretty well disenfranchised for the best part of a century in the US, maybe a brief flurry in the early days of FDR, but that's it. Isn't the term really just a lazy bogey-man to scare the American right? Seriously?

There hasn't been any legislative policy worthy of that name for decades in the US. Oh, except Dubya's bailouts of the banks and insurance companies - those were classic examples of state interventionist socialism lol.

[Erika1487]

Thanks again Ericka. That tallies more or less with my understanding. The one word that leaps out from it, however, is "socialist". Genuine socialists in the US have been pretty well disenfranchised for the best part of a century in the US, maybe a brief flurry in the early days of FDR, but that's it. Isn't the term really just a lazy bogey-man to scare the American right? Seriously?

There hasn't been any legislative policy worthy of that name for decades in the US. Oh, except Dubya's bailouts of the banks and insurance companies - those were classic examples of state interventionist socialism lol.

Isn't the term really just a lazy bogey-man to scare the American right? Seriously?

No because many democrats hold and practice the ideas of many socailists. Notice I did not use the term communist or fascist when describing the hard right or far left. It would be easy enough to do, but those are not widely held positions. Socailism & the The Christian Right are.

[trish]

That's right. Socialists thought the populations of the world should group themselves into nations, make laws and live by them. Oh wait, conservatives think that too. So many conservatives hold and practice the ideas of socialists too. The point is you can take ideas from one philosophy or another without subscribing to the philosophy. Sorry, but very few democrats can be called socialist or even come close to it. Taxation is not a socialist idea. Our founding fathers conceded that taxation with representation was a fair way for governments to raise revenue. Drafting citizens into military service was supported by conservatives for many many years throughout the 20th century. Social security (don't let the name fool you) and Medicare are programs that many conservatives (and even tea-baggers that want government to keep their mits off them) rely upon and support with their votes.

BTW large families is not a conservative value. There are plenty of Christian conservatives who have opted for families of one to three children...indeed probably most Christian conservative families fall into that category. When all is said and done, conservatives say more than they do, when it comes to having children.

[yodajazz]

Bachmann is a Lutheran and Having a big faimly is a christian conservative value that many in my part of Southeast Ohio can relate too.

know to unemployment benefits Bachmann is a fiscal conservative who takes a pretty hard line on the issue.


I am not so sure this is the right thing, I think for the folks who have been unemployed more than 99 weeks maybe some Retraining for a new job or certfication may be needed.

I consider myself to be a Christian, and I see the terms "conseravtive" and "christian" to be contradictory terms, according to the teachings of Jesus, (not Paul). However, that's a subject for another discussion.

It's funny that 'having a big family', was also a characteristic of a negative American protoype, the "welfare queen". And by the way, by having so many foster kids, Ms Bachman should have recieved considerable cash assistance from the state, (for their care). I'm in no way criticizing Ms Bachman. I'm simply noting the irony of how the same behavior by two different people, can be viewed so differently.

It does seem that Ms Bachman does not apporve of gay headed families, acoording to some headline I read. So I see her dedication to family as having 'narrow' limits. Support or non-support, of women headed families is a widespread point of debate.

I know that unemployment benefits have to end at some point. I think that the situation, when a million people were going to lose their benefits at the same time. This was around the last Christmas Holiday's. Ms Bachman mentioned it herself. Ending them at that point would have had a serious ripple effect on an economy, that was already reeling, from so many losing value on thier homes, in my opinion.

Thanks for providing more info on Bachman. I need to research the concept of 'fiscal conservative' in more depth.

[Stavros]

Erika, you pigeon-hole ideas and people together, and I am not convinced. If you had to provide a detailed breakdown you would end up with so many permutations of people and ideas it would render the differences between Republicans and Democrats unintelligible.

The Environmental Protection Act 1970 was and remains one of the boldest pieces of legislation on the environment, and created an agency that has for some people taken intervention in business to extremes -yet it was signed into law by Richard Nixon, whose first adminstration was supposed to be rolling back the Big Government programmes associated with LBJ. The EPA also worked, in those days, and perhaps for that reason it today is the target of, yes you guessed, Republicans who claim the minutiae of environmental stipulations undermines business. But this is what the oil companies said in 1970 when the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society (two conservative institutions) blocked the development of Alaska -they succeeded in holding up development for five years, after which the companies made so much money they didn't know what to do with it. Thus, what was 'conservative' in 1970 is presented by the same party as 'liberal' in 2011. Had the EPA and the Interior Ministry been encouraged to apply their stipulations in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, it is doubtful if the oil spill in 2010 would have happened. The recent history of regulatory regimes in the USA is as poorly understood as it is in the UK, even though the 'regulation-lite' adopted by Bush II and his buddy Blair have been so catastrophic.

Again, Nixon appointed Warren Burger to the Supreme Court because he was a conservative, and said man then opted for decisions that were anything but. We don't discuss the Supreme Court much in these threads but it is fascinating how conservatives issue liberal judgements, and vice versa.

As for all that stuff about the family, again, show me a politician in any country who says I don't approve of marriage and the family. And yet there are broken homes all over the world, broken for the most part by famine, war, pestilence and death...

[Erika1487]

That's right. Socialists thought the populations of the world should group themselves into nations, make laws and live by them. Oh wait, conservatives think that too. So many conservatives hold and practice the ideas of socialists too. The point is you can take ideas from one philosophy or another without subscribing to the philosophy. Sorry, but very few democrats can be called socialist or even come close to it. Taxation is not a socialist idea. Our founding fathers conceded that taxation with representation was a fair way for governments to raise revenue. Drafting citizens into military service was supported by conservatives for many many years throughout the 20th century. Social security (don't let the name fool you) and Medicare are programs that many conservatives (and even tea-baggers that want government to keep their mits off them) rely upon and support with their votes.

BTW large families is not a conservative value. There are plenty of Christian conservatives who have opted for families of one to three children...indeed probably most Christian conservative families fall into that category. When all is said and done, conservatives say more than they do, when it comes to having children.

Sorry, but very few democrats can be called socialist or even come close to it

Little history lesson.......
Norman Mattoon Thomas November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968 was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the
Socialist Party of America .

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the

name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist

program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without

knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as

a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party

has adopted our platform."

I think that explains pretty clear what "liberalism" stands for in todays world........

[Erika1487]

Erika, you pigeon-hole ideas and people together, and I am not convinced. If you had to provide a detailed breakdown you would end up with so many permutations of people and ideas it would render the differences between Republicans and Democrats unintelligible.

The Environmental Protection Act 1970 was and remains one of the boldest pieces of legislation on the environment, and created an agency that has for some people taken intervention in business to extremes -yet it was signed into law by Richard Nixon, whose first adminstration was supposed to be rolling back the Big Government programmes associated with LBJ. The EPA also worked, in those days, and perhaps for that reason it today is the target of, yes you guessed, Republicans who claim the minutiae of environmental stipulations undermines business. But this is what the oil companies said in 1970 when the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society (two conservative institutions) blocked the development of Alaska -they succeeded in holding up development for five years, after which the companies made so much money they didn't know what to do with it. Thus, what was 'conservative' in 1970 is presented by the same party as 'liberal' in 2011. Had the EPA and the Interior Ministry been encouraged to apply their stipulations in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, it is doubtful if the oil spill in 2010 would have happened. The recent history of regulatory regimes in the USA is as poorly understood as it is in the UK, even though the 'regulation-lite' adopted by Bush II and his buddy Blair have been so catastrophic.

Again, Nixon appointed Warren Burger to the Supreme Court because he was a conservative, and said man then opted for decisions that were anything but. We don't discuss the Supreme Court much in these threads but it is fascinating how conservatives issue liberal judgements, and vice versa.

As for all that stuff about the family, again, show me a politician in any country who says I don't approve of marriage and the family. And yet there are broken homes all over the world, broken for the most part by famine, war, pestilence and death...

When you talk about middle of the road politics there is a huge shade of gray, but ask anyone what the difference between a Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann and it is pretty clear most folks in this country are on one side of the isle or another.

[trish]

You quote a lunatic to defend your take on just what liberal values are but you don't address any of the points and examples that others have given here to illustrate that those values are shared by conservatives and are not at all definitively socialist.

[Stavros]

I think that explains pretty clear what "liberalism" stands for in todays world........

Few people have heard of Thomas whose quote you cite is more wishful thinking than reality. There have been enough Democrat Presidents and Congresses since, say 1900 to have a go at 'socialism' and not been so keen on it. I accept that there has and will always be a major debate about the role of Federal and State government, that is in the nature of the American political system and also helps keep it vibrant and perpetually interesting. What you have had particularly since the 1960s are Federal programmes which try to fill a gap the private sector cannot or will not fill, and which focus for the most part on the most vulnerable people in society. But activist government doesn't automatically translate into socialism -the French call it dirigisme, but for them its about the power of the State not socialism, you can't call de Gaulle a socialist for example, even if he was dirigiste.

To judge if there has ever been socialism in the USA, look at the absent indicators of public ownership that I would expect socialism to deliver:

1. Transport: one national airline company; the national ownership of all the railroad, bus and local transportation networks (ferries, trams, cable cars et al).
2. A national oil and gas company owning all of the USA's oil and gas resources, and its refineries, and its gas stations.
3. A nationally owned banking system, including insurance.
4. A single, unified national health care service.
5.A single, unified national education service.
6.All major industries in national companies -coal, steel, motor vehicle manufacturing, construction, computing, pharmaceuticals and so on.
7. A single unified broadcasting system for radio and television covering the whole of the USA.

The point is that socialism replaces private ownership with 'public' or 'social' ownership, where the delivery of goods and services is conducted for the public good rather than for profit. You can have a mixture, just as Europe, for example, has national health and education services, publicy owned transport, and so on -but thats what it is, a mixed economy -I don't think anyone would characterise Germany as a socialist state -yet its transport network is one of the finest in the world. Margaret Thatcher's government's privatised our railways and they are still over-crowded, unreliable and outrageously expensive.

Socilaism has been traced back to biblical times, but that is because for some a socialist society resembles a 'moral economy' rather than a 'market economy'. A moral economy exists where the production and distribution of goods is shaped by the needs of the community rather than individual desire -it is found mostly among what are sometimes called 'peasant' or tribal societies -the first nations of America, the tribes of Papua New Guinea, Aborigines of Australia. It is the 'primitive communism' Marx claimed to exist before feudalism, a claim that is historically unverifiable.

Marx saw socialism as part of the transition from capitalism to communism, and I think it is fair to argue that the USSR economically implemented socialism for most of its existence, rejecting private enterprise. Either it doesn't work, or the Russians were outstandingly bad at industry -in fact the evidence shows they were so bad its a wonder the system didn't collapse before 1990 but thats not the subject of this thread.

[FreddieGomez]

those things u call breasts are from being 260lbs, that's just fat...not titties.....all fat dudes have man-titties....smh

[Silcc69]

those things u call breasts are from being 260lbs, that's just fat...not titties.....all fat dudes have man-titties....smh

U know it's bad wheen Freezy is in the politics section.

[yodajazz]

Thanks again Ericka. That tallies more or less with my understanding. The one word that leaps out from it, however, is "socialist". Genuine socialists in the US have been pretty well disenfranchised for the best part of a century in the US, maybe a brief flurry in the early days of FDR, but that's it. Isn't the term really just a lazy bogey-man to scare the American right? Seriously?

There hasn't been any legislative policy worthy of that name for decades in the US. Oh, except Dubya's bailouts of the banks and insurance companies - those were classic examples of state interventionist socialism lol.
I think the label "socialist" is more than a "lazy bogey-man to scare the American right". It's loaded code term, that has many years negativity invested in it, with related terms like "the evil communist menace". So many people, dont use have critical thinking skills to examine an issue, once the label is put on it. I think the classic book, "1984" by George Orwell, showed how the public mind was manipulated. Many people looked at it, as how a communist/socialist state might gain control, but the reality is,that it was about general brainwashing techniques, that any elite could use, including a state controlled by capitalist business entities. It's been a very long time since I read the book, but I recall a central illustration in it, was how people could believe that something false was true. Today, instead of a person of modest means looking out for his own best interests, in public policy, he is looking out for the wealthy class. He believes they have only his best interests in mind. Added to today's opposite reality, many people have be misled to believe the instrument, created for their general well being, the government, is preventing the wealthy from giving them material good. It's business as God. But to be more balanced, much government these days, is about protecting business over the interests of the common good.

So relating back to the topic at hand, there are a few times when the government taking over (administrating) an industry, was proposed for the general good. I see this as the case for a proposed universal health care system in the US. It was not really about socialism, it was about fighting the inefficiency of busisness to deliver a product on a wider scale. And the product of health care, for everyone is then defined as; a public good, more important than profit making. Calling something 'socialism', is a weapon used to protect the idea of profit making (money), as the greatest good (God).

Since I brought up the topic of money, I must say that the ancient saying that "money is the root of all evil", is a misquote. The actual saying is, "the love of money, is the root of all evil". This in practical terms, is putting money above human compassion and concerns. Our current national focus in the US recently, has been all about money, with a big dose of contempt, for people that dont have it. Enough said.

[Stavros]

Yodajazz you are right about the use of 'bogey' words: Janet Daley, an American living in the UK who writes as a 'Conservative' for the Telegraph and used to be on a BBC radio programme called The Moral Maze, wrote an article on post-riot/looted 'England' in which she slates the 'liberal' agenda of social welfare, teachers unable to punish children and so on -but her use of the word Liberal is straight out the USA where it is a bogey word for the 'left' in general, regardless as to its different connotations in the UK. It is, I suppose ironic in that context that Orwell was influenced by the USA -the UK in 1984 is Airstrip One; the cafe where rebels meet is the Chestnut Tree Cafe (cue: Longfellow); the enemy of the state Emmanuel Goldstein is often thought to be Trotsky but was actuallly modelld on the American-Russian anarchist Emma Goldman; then there is the identity of Big Brother, surely not Uncle Sam...yes, Orwell wrote a lot of 1984 and Animal Farm with the USSR and its rogues gallery of losers in mind; but the USA was in the mix too...