Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I've always tried voting for the best candidate.Who asked ya!!!!
I have, for most of my adult life, voted for the person who I felt would do the least damage and I have done pretty good with that approach. Only once did I vote for the guy I thought was best for the job and I am not so sure I got that one right. This time however I cannot figure out who will do the least damage and there is no best so......
No they're not. They are mixed economic systems, with a good deal more socialism in the mix than the USA.
On the internet and in real life both. Likely a good deal of confirmation bias there, but it is what I see.
There are lots of people who preach this. Many are libertarian and republican types. Not that I am naming names, such as yours
Mixed economic systems, like the other 1st world countries have. Basic needs are rights. Luxury items are not.
I try to be rational and nuanced. Capitalism is great for allocation of sports cars, boobjobs, game apps, and antique machines. Prenatal care, education, nutrition, potable water, housing, security, not so much. I'll call those things human rights and to the extent that our capitalism doesn't deliver I do despise it. Compare the USA to Sweden and Mexico and we are altogether too similar to Mexico. I despise that.
Well, really I don't. Merely supporting the most conservative of the 4-5 top presidential candidates doesn't really make me one. Although supporting her while not supporting the culture of victimhood that seems to be so popular amongst "liberal" people probably explains your confusion.
I suspect that you include social welfare in "socialism".
Smells like straw.....uncited quotes form unnamed sources......those people are the worst!On the internet and in real life both. Likely a good deal of confirmation bias there, but it is what I see.
There are lots of people who preach this. Many are libertarian and republican types. Not that I am naming names, such as yours
Be careful posting in the Conservative Only forum.
They may have a Capitalist market of goods (though with stricter regulations in many areas), and they a good deal of socialism. Germany recently decided their cheap as dirt college tuition was cost prohibitive for too many, so they made it tuition free. They generally all have health care as a given that costs them nothing more than what is deducted for their taxes. In Canada, every child regardless of immigration status is entitled to an education, and they even their tourists are covered under their health insurance if the have an emergency. In Norway, the government set up a fund that has made everyone, in theory according to the economic stuff, a millionaire. And that's what socialism is - the government taking care of its people. Many nations are finding it's a good fit with Capitalism because it addresses many of the complaints of Capitalism, while addressing many concerns of ethical obligations of expanding rights, potential for economic advancement, and raising the lowest to raise all of society together.
No one is answering my question about where the news is better in non-capitalist countries.
BBC and Reuter's certainly are of a much higher caliber than Fox or MSNBC (I've not really watched the news in other places).
They're saying it's a merging of the two.
We'll never resolve that.
What's the difference?
Under capitalism, anyone can offer news, so there's diversity of opinion.
Wrong!
That simply is not true as Socialism inherently includes no such laws.
Like the time Mike Pence wanted a state news outlet that he was hoping other state news sources would look to for their own news to report. Yet another time he embarrassed the state:
It is not part of the definition of "socialism", but it is an inevitable effect.
Of course, authoritarian governments can exist under capitalism.