XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   Socialism is for losers wrote:   
      
   >On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 06:29:39 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>Mitchell Holman wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:   
   >>   
   >>> Socialism is for losers is a loser  wrote in   
   >>> news:tltcokppd80au71q0bucvdacmfa6odq1ql@4ax.com:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 18:15:44 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Coal and wind/solar will coexist for many years.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> With fossil fuel providing the bulk of the fuel.   
   >>   
   >>That will, of course, inevitably change.   
   >   
   >Indeed, it will eventually have to be nuclear, fusion, or fission.   
   >Renewables, wind and and solar will never be primary source.   
   >   
   >--   
   >Only losers want Socialism or Communism.   
   >   
      
    Trump brings socialism to the USA   
   by Kimberly Wehle, opinion contributor - 09/03/25 8:00 AM ET   
      
      
      
   Republicans have for decades hammered the tired refrain that Democrats are   
   “radical socialists” who will lead the country to ruin. In 2020, former   
   Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) laid out the stakes of electing Joe Biden and his   
   party. “Their vision for America is socialism,” she said. “And we know   
   socialism has failed everywhere.”   
      
   Democratic Party leaders seem to agree. When President Trump announced in   
   his 2019 State of the Union Address that “America will never be a socialist   
   country,” even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined the chorus of   
   colleagues who stood and applauded.   
      
   A 2021 report unpacking the 2020 election results concluded that   
   “Republican attempts to brand Democrats as ‘radicals’ worked” —   
   particularly in messaging around “radical socialists” and “defund the   
   police,” as well as among “immigrant populations that fled socialist   
   governments, including among Venezuelan, Cuban, Vietnamese, and Filipino   
   voters.”   
      
   And despite Zohran Mamdani’s strong victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo   
   in the June New York City Democratic mayoral primary, the self-proclaimed   
   socialist has been shunned by numerous prominent New York Democrats. This   
   includes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Gov. Kathy Hochul   
   and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).   
      
   But now it is Trump who is acting like a socialist. Corporate donors should   
   take note.   
      
   In June, the Trump administration approved Nippon Steel’s acquisition of   
   U.S. Steel on the condition that it give the White House a “golden share”   
   of the Japanese company. Although it is not an equity stake, Trump   
   declared, “We have a golden share, which I control, or the president   
   controls.”   
      
   On Aug. 22, Intel announced an agreement with the administration to take   
   $8.9 billion in the company’s common stock, approximately a 10 percent   
   stake, making the U.S. the largest investor in the tech giant that builds   
   the semiconductor chips that power smartphones, computers and data centers.   
      
   This deal is no freebie for the American taxpayer. It is in lieu of Intel   
   repaying the federal grants it received under the bipartisan U.S. Chips and   
   Science Act, which Biden signed into law in 2022. Earlier last month, Trump   
   also made a deal with two of Intel’s rivals, Nvidia and Advanced Micro   
   Devices, requiring them to pay 15 percent of the revenues made from sales   
   to China to the U.S.   
      
   Although most of the Republican Party has cheered on Trump’s plans to   
   acquire stakes in other companies, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote on X, “If   
   socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the   
   government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?”   
      
   And tellingly, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed the move.   
      
   The fact that too few Americans seem to notice this Republican incoherence   
   could stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the “s-word” even   
   means. In 2018, a Gallup poll found that 23 percent of Americans defined   
   socialism as equality, 17 percent as state control of the economy, 10   
   percent as social welfare and public services, 6 percent as “talking to   
   people, being social, social media, getting along with people,” and another   
   6 percent in “non-specific” derogatory terms.   
      
   Two recent surveys demarcate socialism as the opposite of capitalism. A May   
   Rasmussen poll found that 71 percent of likely voters continue to reject   
   socialism in favor of free-market capitalism. That number could be   
   changing, as a Cato/YouGov survey of Americans under 30 showed 62 percent   
   favoring socialism over capitalism, and 34 percent viewing communism   
   favorably.   
      
   Most dictionaries define socialism as an economic, social and political   
   system calling for governmental ownership and control of property, the   
   means of production and the distribution of goods. Karl Marx and Frederick   
   Engels advocated for social control of resources in their 1848 Manifesto of   
   Communist Party as the means of achieving true freedom and prosperity. But   
   they viewed socialism as a mere step toward communism, which rejects social   
   classes, money and the state entirely in favor of common ownership.   
      
   Socialism thus means all sorts of things to all sorts of Americans across   
   the political divide. British journalist James Bloodworth has argued that   
   socialism is hard to define in contemporary society because “the word [is]   
   being used as both a synonym for communism and a wooly affectation, an   
   appellation which signals that one cares about worthy causes.”   
      
   Trump’s brand of socialism is not the wooly kind. According to the American   
   Enterprise Institute’s Michael Strain, since Trump’s conflation of   
   government and the private sector is occurring “outside of a crisis   
   situation,” it is both “unprecedented” and “aggressive” — not necessarily a   
   good thing.   
      
   For starters, it is bad for Intel because the company can no longer take   
   steps that are strictly in the best interests of its shareholders. If what   
   Intel needs to do is politically unpopular for the White House — such as   
   closing plants or laying off workers — it must now think twice. Other   
   companies seeking to land a government contract might need to prioritize   
   U.S.-owned vendors such as Intel, even if their products are not what their   
   companies need. Or they might worry first and foremost about what Trump   
   himself wants. (Prior to the deal, the president demanded that Intel fire   
   its CEO, Lip Bu-Tan, due to prior ties to the Chinese military.)   
      
   Trump’s apologists might point to the bank bailouts by President George W.   
   Bush (continued by President Barack Obama) during the 2008 financial crisis   
   or the existence of government corporations such as Amtrak and the   
   Tennessee Valley Authority — a federally owned electric utility corporation   
   — as historical examples justifying this administration’s grabbing the   
   levers of private sector control. But unlike with the Intel deal, the bank   
   bailouts were temporary. And both Amtrak and the Tennessee Valley Authority   
   were created by Congress.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)