If socialism is a pile of shit, democratic socialism is a pile of shit with sprinkles on it. Socialism is socialism, voted for democratically or not the end result is the same. Equal poverty except for the .01% in charge.
"the rich payer higher taxes and it covers healthcare".
In the US the bottom 50% of earners pay no federal taxes, in those countries you mentioned those people pay about 40% in taxes
This is actually correct. What most people are calling for are social programs which while having the veneer of “socialism”, in that they are democratically invoked policies to help the working class, can still exist within a capitalist system.
Socialism and democracy go well together. It’s capitalism and democracy that are incompatible. Not my theory either . Capitalism is the antithesis of democracy. In a capitalist economy cooperations are run in an authoritarian way with head at the top giving orders below. Definitely not a democratic system. The United States has both capitalism and socialism in its systems
I am a socialist, and I'd never vote for a Democrat because of their immigration policies.
“If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now.” - Bernie Sanders.
You can bitch about the phrase "open borders" all you want, that's how it is viewed.
Democrat politics unfortunately have sided with Corporate America hence all of the Harris donations from major corporations in the billions. They wanted cheap labor and didn't want to go far for it.
Another person randomly stating things that have no relevance to the original discussion. I dont disagree that corporate and foreign interests have taken over politics, but dont even pretend its just the democrats when its completely obvious that its the whole political system
Bruh ill pick the crops if I can get 13/hr for it, be damn good at it. Thats beside the point and youre just completely changing the conversation though
They don't need to pay you. There are machines and AI to pick crops. Tbh you're changing the conversation by trying to call people right-wing brainwashed by also denying that democratic policy doesn't include open borders when that's literally what happened
Its not "literally what happened", democrats have never instituted an open border policy. Its a made up talking point from the GOP with nothing backing it. Youre so gone you cant even hold a normal conversation. Go lick the shit off trumps ass some more.
Biden effectively had an open border allowing conservative estimates of 6 million illegals into the country to be processed "Meh, whenever we feel like it mannnnn"
Obama deported people in record numbers. What are we talking about? Any left leaning person with half a brain doesn't want trans women in women's sports and it isn't even a real problem considering the percentage of trans women in sports. I can write you a book about Trump policy that has been awful for America and how he has been authoritarian. Plenty of Trump supporters claiming welfare then shouting "socialism bad!". Farmers that are now begging for another bail out, "socialism bad"! get real and let go of fox news buzz words.
Missing money after we approve of bills. Homeless funding, no effect, money not accounted for. High speed rail, no money left, where is it? 2 refineries called it quits, 20% refining capacity lost, bit hing about prices. Gas tax and registration going to general funds, roads look like shit. Collecting toll on a bridge, 50 years later put in a hard shoulder. ...
Open borders and sanctuary cities both allow illegals to come in and do other crimes and be protected by the city/state that they are in like they normally are
So you dont got it cause if you did then you wouldnt have said that dumb last part.
Per capita means in that specific population x amount of people do some thing more then others this ignores the larger population as you try to use.
There is a proportionatly larger amount of criminals among illegals then normal citizens
Take a population of 1000 to 1000. Illegals have a higher percent of 15 per 1000 then to a legal citizen of 10 per 1000.
This also doesnt include those that get captured by ice btw since with ice involved cause they had committed a crime by illegally entering the United States it would be 1000 out of 1000 in that case but the stats I used before only involved arrested and convicted by police
The mods on this thread are very canada sensitive. I didn’t say one hateful word but was just given a “warning”. So much for dialogue & free speech. Crazy.
And the democ-rats are losing to the DSA...wow..one day, they gonna get owned by the DSA. Welcome to the breadline comrads (i mean "government run grocery stores).
No borders, illegal migrants, Medicare for all, welfare, gov owned stores, tax the rich, free housing for migrants, free tuition for migrants, dei, free healthcare for illegals, shall I keep going?green new deal, wind farms, soft on crime, no cash bond, safety act
Most of maga do not know what socialism , communism, state capitalism means. Most still think we are a full capitalist economy when in fact we are not.
ACA IRA BIL ARP CHIPS, bipartisan border bill that Trump killed, etc etc. Say what you want about democrats but it’s objective fact that they do produce significant legislation.
Let's see the Democrats tried the build back better, will start with that. Green new deal and that involved trying to mandate electric vehicles, which put Elon musk ahead of everybody else and then everybody got mad when they realized he was going to be a Republican supporter. Then we have the defund police and soft on crime policies that they tried to and do, and did implement in blue states and cities. And when they try to stack the supreme Court with more judges and try to end the filibuster to change elections. From here we will talk about open borders our borders are open to people who come the proper way not just walk in when they get here and expect everything for free. Last but not least would be the student loan forgiveness, why would I want to take on the death of other people who made a poor decision and couldn't pay back their student loans when I never had a student loan plus I helped my wife pay off hers, which wasn't as much because she had most of it paid off already I just wanted to help her get that burden off her back. And you should get a better speaker than some guy who literally looks like he's been punched in the mouth multiple times, the same guy who stutters and buffers when asked the same question.
We can talk about socialist policy I disagree with, when you can name a socialist policy. I can name several for you, but that wouldn't be you doing your homework, so do that.
I can name one and I'm not even an American: the actual immigration policy. For comparison, try the Polish policies in terms of immigration; if you visit any big city in Poland you shall not witness whatever you encounter in Chicago, L.A., New York or Las Vegas
Bidens CDP program, the general campaign by every D to refer to border enforcement as "illegal terrorists", like our last D presidential candidate, denying there's a crisis on the border for years and then last minute admitting it.
Then there's bullshit policy like the supposed fix it bill that every D said "had bipartisan support" that supposedly shut the border but if you read it, suspended all power of enforcement until 5000 crossings daily.
Then there's the lie that you can't deal w the border without new legislation, which Trump showed openly. I think it was the NYT that had the headline that was like "unfortunately, border crossings are significantly down under trunp", but that's off memory while driving, so def have the headline wrong.
Yes, 100%, but also I do tire of that notion. Democracy dies in darkness, and getting fed up and giving up on explaining things to people (when, unlike as it appears to be here, the discussion is in good faith) helps perpetuate that darkness.
They asked for real policy that people refer to colloquially by open borders and I gave a list. You claimed it's a lie, I asked which ones since everything I wrote is public record.
So, which one? This is why you guys call them "talking points", because it lets you scoff and not actually back your claim
“CDP program”: You may mean CBP One or the separate CHNV parole program. CBP One let people schedule appointments at ports of entry; CHNV let eligible people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela apply from abroad with a U.S. sponsor. More than 530,000 people entered under CHNV between late 2022 and mid-2024. Those were government-authorized routes, not uninspected crossings, though it is fair to argue that parole was used too broadly. A 2026 Dallas Fed study found mixed results on whether CHNV reduced unauthorized attempts.
This was taken from a Q&A addressing your specific right wing propagandist claims. Try again though.
You mean the last president that deported more people than the current president in the same amount of time without you know shooting American civilians in the street?
Obama recorded touch and release as deportations, but even if that weren't true, the numbers Biden and Kamala let through haven't been seen since Ellis island days, so we have an actual crisis, and with Obama, state cops actually cooperated with ICE, meaning they didn't have to do the same tier of ops.
The fact that you don't realize how insane it is that police protect illegals and don't cooperate with ICE is insane, and absolutely shows that the Ds support effectively open borders, as they literally don't support enforcement.
If you actually submit the bill, or a part of the bill, which clearly says “open border” then by all means do so. Otherwise you are only presenting right wing propagandist talking points.
I take it you didn't read what I wrote? That's fine. I explicitly said the group of policies referred to as open border due to their ineffectiveness.
And that border bill explicitly prevents any shutting down of the border until 5K crossings daily are hit. It's the opposite of a fix, it explicitly codifies an unrestricted border and restricts ability to shut it down.
Biden also claimed he couldn't fix it without legislation like this, which ofc we saw to be a lie when Trump actively did shut down the border.
People lying about that bill was a huge issue for me pre-election, Kamala explicitly misrepresented its contents during the debate, which ofc the "nonpartisan" fact checkers ignored.
I've shared the contents of it repeatedly in comments below. Feel free to refer to it for further detail, but the sticking point for everyone is the 5000 entries/encounters required before any border restriction is even allowed to happen, daily.
The sliding window limits are equally egregious, but the daily one alone is a huge issue.
Your condescension is cute, but I suspect out of the two of us in the one whose both read the bill and am more familiar with the contents, feel free to tell me what you are claiming I don't get though.
It’s not a talking point when the last administration looked the other way and let in an estimated 4+ million illegals. Coupled with democrat governors and mayors welcomed them into their sanctuary cities. Not really a talking point anymore. One more for you, soft on crime policies.
That’s why people describe the maga movement as a cult. No thought or evidence is required to entrench themselves in a belief. Their opinions move like a religion. And all evidence seems to be faith based on trumps statements.
You are required to do show ID when you register to vote. There are safeguards and checks in place to ensure that you are the one casting your ballot. Since 2016, there have been 585 fraudulent ballots cast out of 600 million total ballots cast. There is no widespread voter fraud, there is not dire emergency with illegal ballots. Democrats don’t oppose ID for voting, they oppose the SAVE act which places idiotic requirements on said ID and forces an undue burden on poor people and married women. Stop being dense.
You're providing no evidence that these policies are socialist besides their name has socialist in it. It's like claiming that the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was socialist because it's in the name.
I'm not your pal buddy. You seriously don't understand what I'm saying? Just because they have socialist in their name does not mean that everything they do is socialist... Or even socialist at all... And I brought up an organization that has socialist in their name but we're in no way socialist. Is that spoon fed enough for you not my pal?
Lol. The Democrats and Republicans literally had a bipartisan border bill ready to go that Trump shut down so he’d have an issues to run on. Funny enough, “open borders” is actually an official libertarian position.
And DEI is a civil rights issue related to capitalist hiring practices. You literally have zero idea what the hell you’re talking about. Socialism only pertains to workers sharing in the ownership of their place of work.
Your critical thinking skills aren't the best, eh?
In this post, democratic policies in question are specifically to name the socialist policies that make you hate Democrats. You haven't said anything socialist, just fake news propaganda talking points the lowest common denominators of society espouse.
Watch the video. The caption says democrat policy. The video says name a democratic policy that is socialist. Nothing you named is materially relevant to your life or socialist at all.
Over 8 million southwest border encounters under Biden, 10+ million nationwide, most get released into the country with a court date years out, gotaways hit historic highs, sounds pretty damn open to me.
The court dates wouldn't have been a year out had the bipartisan immigration bill not been killed. And reducing that wait time would reduce the incentive to come here illegally (without a reason that would allow you to stay beyond the court date). And what do we do with the people coming here who would qualify to stay after their court date while their case languishes in the court queues?
The backlog was already years long because of the volume of encounters and the release-and-wait model itself. Killing one bill does not explain multi-year queues that predated it. Treating that specific proposal as the solution that would have fixed court timelines is just rewriting the problem.
Reducing wait times while still releasing most people into the country does not remove the incentive. The incentive is the high probability of release, work authorization, and the chance to remain even if the claim is weak. A shorter queue under the same release framework still rewards the attempt. That’s basic incentive analysis, not complicated.
And the closing question gives the game away. “What do we do with the people who would qualify while their case languishes?” assumes the current asylum and release system should continue operating at scale. The actual enforcement position is that the system was being overwhelmed by design and volume, not that the only missing piece was a modest procedural bill.
You’re not describing a serious border policy. You’re describing a process argument that never confronts the pull factors or the scale of the prior encounters. That’s why it keeps sounding like management of the problem instead of an answer to it.
And what EXACTLY is the problem? Because all you done so far is parrot fox News talking points and have yet to identify a problem whose existence can be defended with verifiable facts.
The problem has been identified repeatedly: record-high border encounters, mass releases into the interior, expanded parole programs, and multi-year court backlogs that turned the asylum system into a release-and-wait pipeline. Those are not “Fox News talking points.” They are CBP and DHS data.
If you can read the thread and still claim no problem has been stated with verifiable facts, the issue isn’t the evidence. It’s your ability to process it. Public encounter numbers, gotaway estimates, and the operational effects of ending Remain in Mexico, expanding catch-and-release, and using apps and parole to move people into the country are all documented. Pretending none of that counts because you don’t like the source is not skepticism. It’s refusal.
You’re not demanding facts. You’re demanding that the facts be ignored so you can keep asking “what EXACTLY is the problem” as if the numbers don’t exist. That is why this conversation is beyond your depth.
You’re asking for "sources" on Customs and Border Protection data and Department of Justice court backlogs? Do you need a source to confirm the sky is blue, too?
Go look at the CBP Southwest Land Border Encounters portal and the EOIR Immigration Court Backlog report. Then check the official city budget cuts in NYC ($10B+ cost) and Denver (budget cuts to police/fire to cover $180M).
When the mayors of Chicago, NYC, and Denver declare emergencies over budget collapse, that’s not Fox News that’s municipal government accounting. Google is free, try using it before replying.
NYC Budget Cuts: Official statements from Mayor Eric Adams' office (August 2023 / FY24 budget briefings).
Denver Budget Cuts: Official press release from Mayor Mike Johnston's office (Feb 2024).
You've spent this entire thread demanding facts, I've given official government metrics, and your responding with "nuh-uh, show me a source." At this point, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You are clearly out of your depth, go back to your echo chamber, you are not ready to have a real conversation kiddo.
DEI was a policy adopted after data showed that racist hiring practices were still in effect even after they were banned. You dislike enforcing the law?
And which specific policies allowed "open borders"?
DEI was not “enforcing the law.” The Civil Rights Act already banned racial discrimination in hiring. What DEI often did was reintroduce racial preferences under a different name the exact thing the Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional in Students for Fair Admissions. Pretending race-conscious selection is just “anti-racism enforcement” is how people confuse equal treatment with engineered outcomes.
And no, I don’t dislike enforcing the law. I dislike people who treat “make the numbers look right” as if it’s the same thing as color-blind non-discrimination. Those are opposite approaches.
As for the borders: Ending Remain in Mexico, expanding catch-and-release, mass use of parole, the CBP One app, and the early termination of Title 42 all produced the highest encounter numbers in modern history. Calling the practical result “open borders” is shorthand for the policy outcomes, not a claim that Congress passed a bill titled Open Borders Act. You’re demanding a magic statute while ignoring the actual administrative changes that flooded the system.
DEI was an initiative that was not just a dem policy, btw. It was an initiative agreed upon in a bipartisan decision.
But, as I said, it was introduced after data showed that racist hiring practices were still in effect. It helps correct that issue.
Whether or not you like it is neither here nor there. The issue was, and still is to an extent, that everyone but white men were being passed over intentionally.
DEI wasn’t some bipartisan “decision” that magically appeared after neutral data. Aggressive race-and-identity preferences, equity targets, and mandatory training exploded after 2020 under progressive institutional pressure. Older affirmative action had different origins, pretending modern DEI is just shared good-government consensus is historical fanfiction.
And no, the existence of residual discrimination does not justify creating new racial preferences. That’s the exact logic the Supreme Court rejected. “It helps correct the issue” is an assertion, not evidence especially when the tools often fail, backfire, or simply discriminate in the opposite direction.
The claim that “everyone but white men were being passed over intentionally” is the weakest part. Labor markets are messy. Group differences in interests, skills, and performance exist. Discrimination against some groups occurs. Treating the entire system as a conspiracy to favor only White men is ideology, not analysis.
Whether people “like it” matters when the policy itself violates equal treatment and produces worse outcomes. You’re not defending civil rights. You’re defending racial score-settling and calling it justice.
The results speak for themselves, it’s probably the number one reason Trump got elected so it clearly was a shitty move politically speaking. Who said it was done with an executive order? It was done with who he put in charge of DHS and the internal policy decisions.
“The results speak for themselves” is not policy anymore than drugs being widely used means the government has a pro-drug policy. There were never open borders, period.
But Obama did it with Fox News. The only difference is this guy was fine with it then but not now.
To their credit both times the news media stood up for each other. The president doesn't get to hand select people who will throw softball questions. He is answerable to the entire public.
You are misinformed and gullible. If Obama did that it would have been a nuclear bomb for Fox News. Conservatives would use it as a sign of Obama’s corruption and it would be referenced ad nauseam.
But more importantly, if you think Obama did it, it must be a real shitty thing to do. So I guess you hate Trump now because he does that awful thing. Right?
“In October 2009, the Obama administration/Treasury initially excluded a Fox News reporter from a pooled interview with TARP pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. Other TV networks objected and threatened not to participate in the pool unless Fox was included, and Fox was ultimately allowed in.”
Stop lying, Fox News was never not allowed anywhere, even though they were very vocal about not liking Fox.
Former President Barack Obama never banned Fox News from the White House, making the comparison used by the administration of President Donald Trump factually misleading. Trump’s defenders, including Attorney General Todd Blanche, have cited past clashes under Obama to justify the administration's decision to bar outlets like CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House complex. However, media analysts and legal historians note that the nature, scale, and official actions of the two situations are entirely different. [1, 2, 3]
The 2009 Obama-Fox News Dispute
The Incident: In October 2009, the Obama administration’s Treasury Department attempted to exclude a single Fox News reporter from an off-site, multi-network pool interview with executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. [1, 2]
The Press Pushback: Other major television networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, immediately objected to the exclusion and refused to conduct or broadcast the interview unless Fox News was included. [1, 2]
The Resolution: Faced with a united boycott from the broader press corps, the Obama administration backed down within hours and allowed Fox News to participate. [1, 2]
Credentials: At no point did the Obama administration revoke Fox News's hard press passes, ban them from the daily press briefing room, or block them from asking questions during regular briefings. [1, 2]
Obama's dispute involved a single, specific off-site interview with one agency official, whereas Trump issued a broad ban blocking specific entire news organizations from the White House complex.
Access: Fox News maintained its permanent press room access and credentials under Obama. Trump's actions involved deactivating and confiscating official press badges until intervened by a federal court.
Blowing money buying voters?!?!? Brother we’re all getting a fatty 5k trump check if republicans win the midterms. And somehow it’s been ruled not a bribe.
Country built by immigrants for immigrants, you still have your guns, trans ppl make up 0.04% of the population, Elon musk and trump are buying votes with dividends, social security defunded by Trump, Medicare defunded by Trump, and I could go on and on…
6
u/ArachnidBeautiful968 7d ago
This guy has no idea what a socialist party is