My wife has said for months that packing wuflu patients into nursing homes was an intentional plan to reduce health care costs and get rid of the "undesirable" elderly. I found it difficult to argue with her on that point.

All governments that lean far enough to left, ultimately run into that same scenario. Some people contribute more to society than they take, and others take more than they put in. Disabled, retirees etc. are in the later category.

Taking care of everybody, regardless of their contribution, initially seems to be the most compassionate way of doing things. Those who contribute more, get discouraged as they get the same as those who contribute less, or none at all. This reduces productivity to the point where there aren't enough resources to go around.

Severe rationing will eventually make even the most compassionate question how they can fix it. There is either encourage productivity (often at gunpoint, which isn't as effective as you might think) or reduce consumption. With severe rationing already in place, reductions in consumption can't be targeted at those who are net contributors, which naturally means those who are net takers need to be... dealt with.

This dynamic is what leads to millions or tens of millions dying at the hands of the far left. This is "The Socialists Dilemma" as I term it. Socialism cannot work until you resolve 3 critical problems:

The power of the government will turn tyrannical under socialist if left unchecked. As Carl Marx, the father of Marxist communism said: Any attempts to disarm the people of their arms and ammo must be frustrated by any means, including force. He recognized the same as the founders did in the 2A. The people must be armed.

Anybody who is against the 2A is not a real socialist, and should be considered a tyrant for advocating one without the other.

Second is to understand the dynamic of net takers and net contributors. This means we need absolutely zero tolerance immigration policies where all immigrants and net contributors, and young enough to contribute enough to make up for what they will take at an older age. Illegal immigration will ultimately disrupt this, and absolutely no illegal immigrant can be allowed or tolerated. Such would only have net takers join in, which would sink the socialist ship.

Anybody who is in favor of illegal immigration is not a real socialist, and should be considered dangerous for advocating for both.

Third, and this is the major deal breaker, you must have a very strong nationalistic culture that advocates for hard work and contribution to community, regardless of ones individual compensation. This can only be done through not only nationalism, but a deep and enduring culture. Even then, its increasingly challenging to maintain as the size of the nation increases.

Anybody who is against nationalist and/or a strong cultural identity, is not a real socialist and is probably a foreign provocateur if advocating socialism while opposing these things.

Our current crop of socialists:

Oppose the 2A

Are in favor of illegal immigration

Are anti-nationalist

Are opposed to a culture of hard work

They say: "Real socialism hasn't been tried!"

I say: "Insanity is doing the same things over and over, and expecting a different result."

We absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, allow these people to come into power. It's literally the worst recipe for disaster possible.