Is Ken Paxton a Democratic Socialist?

zymurgy said:
The one spewing bullshit here is you.

You literally tried to argue that a medicine becomes “free” because someone is allowed to deduct the expense from taxable income.

That is not how a tax deduction works.

And we do not even know yet whether Paxton’s proposed deduction would be above-the-line, itemized, or structured some other way. If it were itemized, plenty of taxpayers taking the standard deduction might receive no benefit from it at all.

Yet here you are confidently declaring that a $5,000 deduction means government just bought somebody a $5,000 drug.

Before lecturing everyone about socialism, populism, and economic systems, you might want to acquire a basic understanding of the tax mechanism your entire argument depends upon.

Watching someone this certain while being this wrong is genuinely embarrassing.
Click to expand...
No.

I posted an OP using the broad definition that the right labels everything populist as Socialist that the left does and posed a question if that fits Paxton now.

You, like the idiot you are claimed i was wrong Socialist while trying to change the definition of Socialist we were idiot using.
 
QP! said:
No.

I posted an OP using the broad definition that the right labels everything populist as Socialist that the left does and posed a question if that fits Paxton now.

You, like the idiot you are claimed i was wrong Socialist while trying to change the definition of Socialist we were idiot using.
Click to expand...
you replied to what I wrote. now you don't want to own what you wrote to me

clown shoes behavior
 
zymurgy said:
you replied to what I wrote. now you don't want to own what you wrote to me

clown shoes behavior
Click to expand...
You replied to what I wrote.

And i created the thread title and the OP which you replied to saying calling what was in the OP as any form of Socialist was wrong.

I've proved you wrong and that is clear to see.

Using the rights catch all definition they define everything as Socialist in the left there simply is no way Paxton escapes it.

You know that now I've explained to you. You know you fucked up and were wrong. That is why you desperately want to pivot to a formal definition for socialism.
 
QP! said:
You replied to what I wrote.

And i created the thread title and the OP which you replied to saying calling what was in the OP as any form of Socialist was wrong.

I've proved you wrong and that is clear to see.

Using the rights catch all definition they define everything as Socialist in the left there simply is no way Paxton escapes it.

You know that now I've explained to you. You know you fucked up and were wrong. That is why you desperately want to pivot to a formal definition for socialism.
Click to expand...
you proved you have no understanding of tax policy. that is the only proof you have provided in here
 
QP! said:
No.

I posted an OP using the broad definition that the right labels everything populist as Socialist that the left does and posed a question if that fits Paxton now.

You, like the idiot you are claimed i was wrong Socialist while trying to change the definition of Socialist we were idiot using.
Click to expand...
Bruh, what kinda Engrish is this? :oops:
 
cawacko said:
Are Canada and a bunch of European countries (democratic) socialist countries then because they have single payer healthcare?
Click to expand...
cawacko you can see why the definition matters by the answer Matt Dillon gives next. Because if you use the strict proper definition or the one the DSA uses then in no way do Canada and many EU countries fit it.

They are far closer to the US model, which has a mix of socialilistic govt delivered programs layered in to a largely Capalist democracy but the Canadians and EU ones just have more.

At Matt Dillon is the template person, on the right and how they view socialism and label a massive basket that is left of them as all socialist.

Matt Dillon said:
Yes. :dunno:
Click to expand...
The question is how @zymurgy would answer that and i think that depends on who is doing the actions. If it is a Ken Paxton type, from the right delivering he will argue strongly one way, but if it is a Bernie type, i suspect entirely the opposite.
 
QP! said:
cawacko you can see why the definition matters by the answer Matt Dillon gives next. Because if you use the strict proper definition or the one the DSA uses then in no way do Canada and many EU countries fit it.

They are far closer to the US model, which has a mix of socialilistic govt delivered programs layered in to a largely Capalist democracy but the Canadians and EU ones just have more.

At Matt Dillon is the template person, on the right and how they view socialism and label a massive basket that is left of them as all socialist.


The question is how @zymurgy would answer that and i think that depends on who is doing the actions. If it is a Ken Paxton type, from the right delivering he will argue strongly one way, but if it is a Bernie type, i suspect entirely the opposite.
Click to expand...
you are a sophomoric bore. tag away retardo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top