The Most Interesting Man In The World

It wouldn't work because those socialist countries have very strict immigration laws.

Good one.

same 2 u

He needs their votes

That sign says it all, lol!

Norway does not have a socialist government. Norway is officially a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy, very much like the UK.

Parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchies can be socialist.

Yes, I guess that could be true if the voters elected a far-left socialist government.

However, in the case of Norway, they are a free market economy. In fact, in 2017, Norway again elected the center-right conservative party which built a coalition with the right-wing, anti-tax, anti-immigration Progress Party. Norway is far from a socialist government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/world/europe/norway-election.html

It wasn't so long ago that Norway was governed by a socialist coalition of the Labour Party and the Socialist Left Party. These things tend to run in cycles, so it's entirely possible tbey could regain power. In the meantime I don't see a massive overturning of socialist-inspired policies. The Conservatives might lower taxes, but that'll be about it. Norway still has the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, and it's doubtful they'd want that to change.

I think Venezuela is more what everyone had in mind.

Venezuela seems to be how everyone defines 'socialist'.

It is a pretty poignant example of the dangers of socialism, and certainly the most recent socialist disaster.

It's also what NO ONE want's in this country including "socialist college students"
If anything most "socialists" in this country are left wing Democratic Socialists that want to be more like Norway, Canada, and every other successful place (for the average person) in the world. Look at ANY "Highest quality of life" lists for reference.

Those countries are/were successful because they implemented the right amount of socialism. Canada is now going downhill thanks to Turdeau getting into office and pushing the socialism too far.

No political ideology is good in it's purest form, not democracy, not capitalism, and certainly not socialism. Pure democracy is mob rule, and that leads to things like lynch mobs. Pure capitalism doesn't care about the poor at all, and pure socialism is ultimately slavery all over again, those who can work being forced to provide the benefit of their labors for free to those who /don't want/ to work.

The right balance of ALL those ideologies needs to be found.

And, in point of fact, today's democrats are far more capitalist than they will ever admit. The areas with the biggest poor/homeless problems are almost all "liberal".

Very well put.

LOL "the right amount of socialism" - Not sure you will grab ANY Trumpers with that line.

"The areas with the biggest poor/homeless problems are almost all "liberal"."

The poorest states of the country are Red/GOP/Republican/Conservative.

Even "liberal" major cities like NYC are doing better per capita. Although Homelessness is an issue in cities, to be sure. The root issue is cost of living and mental health assistance.

Try again.

"Wrong. The states with the biggest POOR problems are the poorest states. Plain and simple."

So you consider California and New York to be among the poorest states?

While I grant the housing costs are ridiculous and a major factor in those states, the fact is liberals WANT a big homeless problem, so they can point at it as a reason they need all that juicy federal funding, and so they can virtue-signal about how much they want to help the homeless in order to get votes.

The very narrative they spin about all the benefits and free money they want to give the homeless /attracts/ a lot of homeless people to a place where they could never hope to afford getting off the streets.

Red states TAKE more in federal funds than they pay in.

I don't think cities can receive any federal funds so your theory is BS - if you have contrary evidence, bring it on.

" I don't think cities can receive any federal funds so your theory is BS - if you have contrary evidence, bring it on."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/02/02/mapping-27-billion-in-federal-funding-of-americas-sanctuary-cities/

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/02/03/sanctuary-cities-targeted-by-trump-receive-billions-in-federal-funds/

I was under the impression that cities have to get funding via the State they are in, so I guess that's not the case. Interesting if so.

Regardless the Red states take more than they pay in, so....there's that.

"Red states TAKE more in federal funds than they pay in."

Had to look into that, and I'm not seeing evidence that backs up the idea that it has anything to do with the states that get more than they put in being red states. Several red states are among the top tax-paying states, including Texas, North Dakota, and Nebraska.

On top of that, several blue states are among the /lowest tax/ paying states, aka they "TAKE more in federal funds than they pay in". This includes New Mexico, Maine, and Hawaii.

What I'm seeing is that the /lowest populated/ states tend to be the ones that get more than they put in, which only stands to reason. They deserve federal funding for certain things as much as any other state. That's part of why they joined the union, after all.

And guess what? New Mexico, Maine, and Hawaii are all among the lowest populated states.

Not a debate. Just fact.
"Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.

California fared a bit better than other blue states. It received 96 cents for every dollar the state sent to Washington.

On average, states received $1.14 in federal spending for every tax dollar they sent to Washington. That’s why the federal government has a budget deficit."

https://www.apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

We also have a deficit b/c Trump refused to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations (who have the money) while we have such a "booming" economy. He Cuts taxes, and then doesn't cut spending or reduce the size of government. It's a lose/lose.

This state goes on and on. Typically Red states that GET more than they PAY.
With recent tax changes this disparity will get even greater. Blue states PAYmore, Red states GET more: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

"The poorest states of the country are Red/GOP/Republican/Conservative."

That's a deliberately misleading statement. (What a surprise from a leftist). "The poorest states" is not remotely the same thing as "The areas with the biggest poor/homeless problems".

The seven states with the worst homelessness problems are all liberal.

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-homelessness-states-worst-crises-2018-11

Wrong. The states with the biggest POOR problems are the poorest states. Plain and simple.

Poor areas just suck overall. The places with more homelessness seem to be states with less poverty. Homelessness and poverty are not necessarily correlated. See San Francisco for example.

As I said homelessness is an issue with mostly ANY big cities because of housing costs (like YOUR article's headline "These 7 states have the worst homelessness crises in the US. They also have some of the most expensive housing.) and can be in Liberal or Conservative controlled cities/states. Perhaps more so in Liberal cities b/c they TRY to help with more programs and shelters and the housing costs are far higher b/c those areas are desirable and have better employment opportunities. But again, wages vs living costs are an issue.

Maybe it's time companies paid more so people weren't homeless as much.

"Not a debate. Just fact."

I don't see any "fact" that directly proves that the political leaning of any given state has anything to do with it, despite the the fact that the majority of states the receive more than they pay is indeed red. (Something I never disputed). Remember, correlation is not causation.

As I pointed out, several states, including Hawaii, are /blue/ states and still receive more than they pay. And Hawaii is one of the /highest/ taxing states.

The difference is that in Europe, the Labour party and the Social Democrat party are equivalent to the Democrat Party in the U.S.

The Democratic Socialist of America party is much more aligned with the Communist Party in Europe. No private profit, government control of business and society, etc.

As far as overturning socialist programs in Europe, there seems to be a growing trend toward national populism. This trend seems to be a little farther right than our Republican Party in the U.S. The Republican party in the U.S. is like the center-right parties in Europe.

The rise of world wide populism is directly related to social inequity yes, but more so to gaps in income. This is not the first time that the gap has become large - it did so several times over the last century. Hopefully, the elites (whover they might be) will take action create some relief as many of their predecessors did. Else...well the Reign of Terror comes to mind...

"The Democratic Socialist of America party is much more aligned with the Communist Party in Europe. No private profit, government control of business and society, etc."

Based on what evidence?

I have never heard "Crazy" Bernie Sanders (I would assume the most outspoken Democratic Socialist) say anything like this or read these in any platform statement.

In fact Trump and Sanders speak to the same groups: working class, blue collar Americans that are getting the shaft. Bernie blames the corporations and profit hoarding while Trump blames illegal immigrants and poor people.

Do you have some secret info? Please share!

It is not secret.

In fact, it is on the website for the Democratic Socialists of America. It states, no private profit, Government control of business and society, anti-capitalism.

This is the group that Bernie and AOC are both card-carrying members of. Go read up on them.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/

To the gulags they go!

They’d all die so it’d be a very happy ending

That beautiful. Here's ur uv

Well too bad that most of them are Social Democrats, then. I assume you are talking about Social Democracy, since you Americans keep refering to it as Socialism, when its clearly not.

Europe and the U.S. use slightly different definitions in politics.

Social Democrats in Europe are what the U.S. would call Liberals. Democratic Socialists in the U.S. are what Europeans would call far-left or communists.

Read the manifesto of the Democratic Socialist Of America. They want to end private profit and are in favor of government control of business and society.

Too bad most progressives don`t follow your definition of democratic socialists, they want a society similar to Finland and Sweden.... So I guess the`ll have to go to the happiest places on earth...

I think that American “progressives” only see the upside. Can you imagine if the next Democrat administration enacted a 24% national sales tax?

The definition is not mine, it is from the website of the Democratic Socialists Of America. The problem is that most of the people calling for socialism have no idea what socialism really is.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/

or those afraid of it... have no idea what it really is...

Good point