Harris's response to Trump calling her a "female socialist" - VIDEO

[highplainsdem]

Link to tweet

[Budi]

1. K & R

[MagickMuffin]

2. There you go

Socialist care about everyone, you big dummies.

[Gothmog]

3. I love Senator Harris

[ProudMNDemocrat]

4. I was for a Biden-Harris ticket from the very beginning of the Primary season.

And Kamala Harris just demonstrated that point so well.

Donald Trump fears her. AS he FEARS any woman smarter, more eloquent in delivery, up on the issues.

I have noticed both Joe and Kamala have been using the words "LIE" and "LIAR" more in describing Trump. THAT is resonating with voters.

[Caliman73]

5. Excellent answer.

Focus on the issues not on jargon that the idiot probably doesn't even understand.

I said this on another thread on this topic. I really want a reporter to ask Trump what Socialism is and keep pressing for a real answer. My bet is that he has no real idea what Socialism entails and is just using the word because he knows that most people are ignorant about it and just remember it being "the scary thing from the Cold War that Nixon, Reagan, and a host of others fear mongered about". I like the concept of Socialism, but I don't think that is could work on a large scale, globally connected, industrial or post industrial scale. I would like to be proven wrong, but I actually do not think ANY pure economic system works on that large a scale. There has to be a mix of elements.

Anyway digressing, Trump has no clue what Socialism is but he should be pressed to give an answer, especially if he is going to use it as an attack.

He will look like the bumbling idiot he is, if there would be a reporter brave enough to ask him and follow through with questions once he starts to dissemble.

[PETRUS]

7. That was a good answer. May I ask...?

I'm curious about something in your reply. What would you say constitutes "pure" socialism, and why wouldn't it work at scale? Personally, I think it's safe to say that the current standard (mixed economies) certainly doesn't work. That system has led to ecological breakdown. I'm not comfortable asserting that socialism would necessarily be better on that front. Depending on the specific architecture (there are different ideas about how to practice socialism), we could get similar results. In any case, it's a meaty issue with no easy answers, but for now I'm wondering what you have in mind when you imagine "pure" socialism.

[Caliman73]

8. Socialism has many forms, likely "pure" was not a good term.

However, for the sake of discussion socialism is based on the concept of the means of production being owned and controlled by the workers, that private property (Factories, equipment, transport, and trade facilities) do not exist, but are administered by a democratically elected government, for the good of society. Personal property does exist. You can own your home, cars, etc... but Socialism is meant to stop people from exploiting others by keeping individuals from monopolizing resources.

My concern is that people with power, tend to enjoy that power and without strict interventions, they may try to keep and extend that power. As we see in our own government, it is rather easy to purchase power by providing politicians with money and power. As we see in China, which is supposedly Communist, an even stricter economic system where resources are supposedly owned on behalf of the people by the government, class is not supposed to exist, and even personal property is not supposed to exist; the government seems to exist to perpetuate the government's power not to improve the lives and meet the needs of the people.

Basically, I don't know how to offset the issue of greed and lust for power, while maintaining a centralized, albeit democratic authority. If people stay in power too short a time, there will be a chaotic situation where goals and plans are haphazard. If they stay in power too long, then we have to problem I described above.

[PETRUS]

9. Thanks.

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

So, sort of an "iron law of oligarchy" issue? That's a major problem, I agree, and one that very likely has no airtight solution. My reasoning leads me to suspect that the more democratic, egalitarian, and transparent the social institutions are, and the more committed the population is to those values, the easier it would be to forestall such an outcome. I don't know. It seems to me that any political movement can go sideways (possibly departing severely from its stated values), but personally I don't find any reason to fear socialism more than other things, and in many ways I'm less wary about it than I am of most anything else on offer. I don't feel as though I'm the person with the answers, but I do think things need to change significantly, both globally and domestically.

Thanks again.

[Caliman73]

10. Agreed. You are welcome.

It is a fascinating topic.

I don't think that there is anything to fear from socialism either. What any system requires to function is an informed society. So, I guess my biggest fear is continuing ignorance, and greed more than anything.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. "majority of the American people" vs RW buzzwords

Harris knows what she's talking about.

GOPers know what the billionaire boys club tells them to regurgitate in fear and anger.