What is your favorite form of government

FTFY

Remember all the powerful socialist countries on par with USA? Because i don’t.

LOL, triggered much? I didn't call you a troll because you have different views, I called you a troll because you equated fascism and communism. Fascists have a long history of persecuting and killing communists for their political views, and their ideologies are vastly dissimilar. Only a snowflake troll would conflate the two.

Except that's not true. Socialist movements actually do deliver the results they promise. They reduce inequality and poverty, expand access to essential services like healthcare and education, and allow people into sectors that were previously closed off to them. Rather than "blaming white people" they very often create a positive vision for a country that can move beyond class exploitation, or at least ameliorate it. Universal access to healthcare, good schooling, and a check on rampant inequality, sounds good to me.

Looks to me like you're the triggered here, chuckles.

Except that's not true. Socialist movements actually do deliver the results they promise.

Really? I'd love for you to provide an example.

Citing unquantifiable, subjective opinion polls does not make a fact, it makes propaganda.

Remember when I posted the definition of socialists and asked the "Europe is socialist" crowd to pick out a single European country that fits that criteria, and I didn't get crickets? Because I don't

It's obvious those advocating for socialism don't even know what socialism is, and are in fact pointing to capitalist countries as their examples.

How about the government we have right now? Plutocracy. Does anyone want to stand up for plutocracy as their favorite?

Wait, so communists don't have a history of persecuting and killing other people for their views and ideologies? So 20 million Ukrainians killed by the Soviets, 45-50 million Chinese killed in Maos great leap forward. Why were roughly 100 million people killed by their own communist governments in the 20th century?

I don't use Opinion Polls for QOL/SoL/HDI. I use studies that measure education, crime, economy, life expectancy, etc. Actual data, very quantifiable. No reason to lie.

But even then, survey with proper methodology asking what citizens feel is better than 1 random post.

There are several countries with a higher QoL/HDI than USA, and most of them have superior social policy and healthcare.

I just want to be clear, if you don't think those countries are socialist then you can't call U.S. Democrats socialist. Not even AOC or Bernie, as they simply copy policies from those countries that are superior places to live than USA.

And I agree with you, neither are actually true socialists.

Excellent question. I wonder what kind of BS @theone will fabricate to explain that one away.

So what you are saying is you don't use an opinion POLL, you use an opinion SURVEY. I'm glad we could clear that up.

I don't use Opinion Polls for QOL/SoL/HDI. I use studies that measure education, crime, economy, life expectancy, etc. Actual objective numbers, very quantifiable.

By the second line I was saying surveys and polls are still better than "Burnbyhellfire" (aka 0 citation), even when not using objective data studies. Hence the "but even then"........

There are countries that are better places to live than USA. Many of them use ideas Democrats propose, and are incorrectly called socialists for. That's just a fact.

I just want to be clear, if you don't think those countries are socialist then you can't call U.S. Democrats socialist. Not even AOC or Bernie, as they simply copy policies from those countries that are superior places to live than USA.

And I agree with you, neither are actually true socialism. That's just both sides incorrectly using terms to attack each other.

Democracy and Capitalism with high/responsible social policy is the way. US was once a great example of this, as are those countries better than USA.

Mmhmm, and which surveys would those be?

Also, all the war on poverty in the United States has achieved is multi-generational dependency on programs. The actual poverty rate in the US has not improved since it was implemented. So the welfare system as it stands has failed to do what it was intended to do. And "guaranteed funding" for things like healthcare and education only serve to raise the cost of tuition, medications, and treatments at the taxpayers expense while hospitals and colleges stuff their pockets. Guaranteed payment for anything essentially means competition is dead, and the quality of the product is not that great.

That is why the US leads the world in medical advancements and treatments and development of medications, as well as dominates the rankings for the top universities worldwide, comprising of almost the entire top 25, with a lot from the UK that you also have to pay for. You people cite Sweden, Denmark, and Norway a lot. Most rankings don't even list a college from any of those countries in the top 100.

Yes otherwise you end up like the US...

It is nobody elses responsibility to provide for you but your own.

@burntbyhellfire: I bet the US ranks 1st in life expectancy, way ahead of all other countries.

For a country that's the leading economy for so many decades it's kind of a miracle how it struggles to even get top 10s on pretty much every index that actually reflects improvements on its citizens lives. It's great to know how much money the health industry moves compared to other countries but then when you realise that all that greatness puts you on the bottom of a top 40 countries in life expectancy and it's kind of tragic.

So? The difference in life expectancy between the US and those countries above it is a few years, not a big deal. And the US is far more ethnically diverse than any country on the list above it, and without that diversity (like those scandinavian countries you people always point to) our life expectancy would be 79.12 which would put us above Denmark. If we only included asian-americans we'd top the list, and all combined we still beat out Germany. That with a much higher standard of living than any of them I'd say is a pretty damn good balance.

@burntbyhellfire: 😂

@sonicare: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a Republic, a country whose government isn’t controlled by a Royal Family?

You're so easy to own when you open yourself up to this nonsense.

Most of the QOL/SOL measures I cite use objective data measurements like Education, Crime, Pollution, Health. Not Surveys (Although those are still valid for certain facets, like measuring "Happyness").

Do you really think USA is the best lol?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Methodology

World map showing the increases and decreases of points on the Human Development Index scale from 2016 to 2017 (both published in 2018).

+0.013 +0.012 +0.011 +0.010 +0.009 +0.008 +0.007 +0.006

+0.005 +0.004 +0.003 +0.002 +0.001 No increase/decrease −0.001 −0.002

−0.003 −0.004 −0.005 −0.006 −0.007 −0.008 −0.009 −0.010

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators. A country scores higher HDI when the life expectancy at birth is longer, the education period is longer, and the income per capita is higher. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an underdeveloped country.

(Side note on HDI: Red/GOP counties and States are much lower on average than Blue/Democrat counties and states lol. Republicans can't govern.)

Average =/= Top 10 lists lol.

Your country can contain the top 10 hospitals, but if the rest are shit your average plummets.

That is indeed correct.

Mmm, 0.029 points between the United States and the top of the list, .005 from socialists favorite capitalist country, Denmark, and higher than the UK and most of Europe. Were you actually trying to prove something in your favor with that?

Though, I do find it interesting that the scandinavian countries NOT in the European Union consistently score better on these charts than those in the EU.

Countries?

Chile, China, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Cuba, Bolivia, U.K., Belarus. Even failed governments like the USSR managed to reduce inequality and address poverty for a time, bringing Russia out of its feudal age and into the industrial age. The earnings of poor Soviets, for example, increased by 130 percent in the sixties, whereas the wages of upper earners increased by only 40%.

That wasn't my point. My point was that communists and fascists are not one in the same and conflating the two is erroneous.

Limited government.

Yes. I was simply proving my posts correct. In multiple posts you were incorrectly going off about me using polls and surveys for QOL. You also showed clear doubt in European countries (ones which Democrats copy their ideas from) are superior to USA, although they are.

P.S. Much like those capitalist EU countries you don't think Dems are socialists right?

In terms of quality of life, most are in front of the US.

It's not nearly black & white as you suggest, plus that's why the US is such a shitty country to be poor in.

Name one of those that has freedom of speech. I'll wait.

A list of current socialist countries according to Wikipedia

China

Cuba

Laos

Vietnam

Algeria

Bangladesh

Guyana

India

North Korea

Nepal

Nicaragua

Sri Lanka

Tanzania

Take your pick.

Indeed. It’s unfortunate that that poster does not seem to understand at all how modern society works.

If they US is such a shitty country to live in, go to another? I gave you a list of socialist countries. Maybe you should emigrate?

How many countries have you actually lived in?

Do you think Democrats are Socialists?

@sn0man: I don't advocate pure communism or socialism, but I think your stance is also just a little bit extreme. Basic needs don't include luxuries. A pittance from the government to put food on my plate and a tiny apartment around me doesn't completely disincentivize working and providing for a better life.

@leicam6: China is very poor compared to western countries if you look at their wealth on a per capita basis.

Depends on who. I absolutely believe that if Bernie had the power to do so, he would use government to seize control of production. Most dems profit too much off their own corporations, investments, and handouts from the private sector. I think most dems would rather control means of production through heavy regulation that benefits their own interests. "Pay to play" and picking winners.

Isn't it interesting how whenever a socialist country wants to "redistribute the wealth" it ends up in the pockets of a bunch of oligarchs and what little remains gets divided up? That's always going to be the eventual outcome with socialism because essentially, those "oligarchs" are the ones sitting in public office determining how everything is divided up, and without competition in the private sector to drive down costs to the consumer, stimulating economic growth, there just isn't going to be much wealth left for them to divvy.

Those Dems are just calling for policy from those European countries you just called Capitalist though.

You seem confused, and you're changing the definition of Socialism every other post.

That meme posted on page 1 rings true.

Yeah, people who want power are generally awful people. Communism and socialism give these people too much power.

Dystopian Kakistocracy.

I'm not sure 48th out of 180 countries in the world on the Press Freedom Index is something worth bragging over.

2, you?
And why did you think I was a yank?

Exactly. You'd have to be pretty friggin dumb to think government having MORE authority and MORE power do what they want is a good thing. They bitch about corruption now in government full of career politicians most people agree should have term limits, and these people want to give them control over their education? Their healthcare? Lmao, no thanks.

Have you actually lived in the United States or are you just so certain you know what it's like to? I've lived in the United States, and Europe.

@foxhound_fox: Canada doesn’t have free speech. Glad you can’t name one country.

Hooeeey, that's a big question!

Let me see... I like minimally authoritarian and minimally intrusive governments which nonetheless protect right to life (eg. no death penalty), right to bodily integrity (no non-self-consented FGM or MGM, etc.), freedom of expression and other essential human rights. Ideally, they should also universally provide the basic infrastructure needed for social mobility and prosperity.

Beyond that... as regards economy and constitution, there's no way I could answer that in one, or even a hundred posts. I think we have to work with what we've got, and I'm not going to tie myself in knots trying to stay ideologically consistent, because that's a mug's game.

One thing I do believe is that sudden regime changes are massively socially and culturally destructive, so I avoid radical politics where possible.

I don't think socialized healthcare and education (we already have education) equate to a socialist or communist government. It's not really government control so much as it is a different way of covering costs. Nobody is proposing anything to actually reduce costs and that bothers me, personally. I'm not sold on socialized medicine doing much to improve my bottom line.