Sanders - Hit Everybody

[jdshock]

How can people honestly vote for someone who is a self appointed socialist? Do they not read or understand history?

What part of history do people need to read or understand to avoid voting for him? Nazis were nationalist socialists, not democratic socialists.

I get not believing in his policies for any number of reasons, but it's silly to link him to some historical party that was, honestly, not very socialist.

[ShockTalk]

If she continues to lose ground as the moderates start to be accounted for in the polls, it shows just how poorly she handled this election. If she can't gain votes against Bernie from the moderates, she absolutely deserves to lose.

Clinton's response to Sanders has some Democrats worried. Associated Press

[tropicalshox]

Here is Bernie's follow-up closing ad for Iowa.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-25/bernie-sanders-releases-optimistic-closing-ad-in-iowa

[SB Shock]

Here is Bernie's follow-up closing ad for Iowa.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ing-ad-in-iowa

I think he got a very good message.

[Kel Varnsen]

What part of history do people need to read or understand to avoid voting for him? Nazis were nationalist socialists, not democratic socialists.

I get not believing in his policies for any number of reasons, but it's silly to link him to some historical party that was, honestly, not very socialist.

Were Nazis ever mentioned? You say they were "national socialists, not democratic socialists", but aren't they still socialists?

Regardless, the thought that the government can make better economic decisions than citizens and businesses themselves can make economic decisions is absolutely contrary to anything resembling liberty.

[jdshock]

Were Nazis ever mentioned? You say they were "national socialists, not democratic socialists", but aren't they still socialists?

Regardless, the thought that the government can make better economic decisions than citizens and businesses themselves can make economic decisions is absolutely contrary to anything resembling liberty.

So you criticize my post for jumping to the conclusion that he was talking about nazis and then you use nazis as your evidence?

I still don't have the historical example. The poster I quoted acted as if a well informed person couldn't possibly support Bernie and I was interested in the historical evidence. Like I said, nazis are a poor example of the failure of socialism. On the one hand, they were not democratic so that was the loss of liberty. You act like that's not a big deal, but it's the difference between capitalism and "crony capitalism." On the second, they were not really socialists. There was a lot of privatization during the time, in my understanding. They looked nothing like the many democratic socialist states that exist in the world today.

Like I said, I'm still waiting for that poster to explain why a good knowledge of history would prevent someone for voting for Bernie.

[kcshocker11]

[CBB_Fan]

How can people honestly vote for someone who is a self appointed socialist? Do they not read or understand history?

\

Bernie is neither a Stalinist nor the classic socialist boogeyman. He's a social democrat, not a democratic socialist. The first one is an advocate for a mixed economy where the government supports economic and social interventions to promote justice and the general welfare in the context of a capitalist economy, while the second wishes to completely get rid of the capitalist economy and completely replace with nationalized industries in the context of a democratic political system. W

If we want to use American history to talk about current events, let's talk about social democracy in America. We've been a social democracy since at least the early 1900s, and possibly as early as Thomas Paine. In one way or another, virtually every single President we've had since Wilson has pushed for a social democratic government. Every social program, every tax rebate designed to push an agenda, every stimulus bill, is a social democrat program at heart. We've gotten so far away from anything else that we forget what a different form of government even looks like.

The government of the 1800s was a far more bare-bones structure. In today's money, it spent $16 per capita in 1800 and $109 in 1900. An economic system called the "American System" predominated, a school of thought that believed in a very laissez faire economy with a hands-off government. The 7 points of the American system were:

* Funds for national defense
* Frigates for the navy
* A standing army and federal control of the militia
* Federal aid for building roads and canals
* A protective tariff for American manufactuers
* Re-establishing the national bank
* Federal assumption of some debt.

And that was it. That was all they wanted the government to do. No monopoly protections. No social programs. Just road building and defense funds. Since we rejected this minimalist style of government around the 1930s, every President has sought to grow the government and expand its capabilities, both Democrat and Republican alike. What happened in the 1930s? Well, the collapse of the stock market in 1929. But even then, we had a new idea of thought headlined by one of the most influential American presidents ever. I'm talking, of course, about FDR.

The historical figure whose policies most resemble Bernie Sanders is FDR, not Eugene Debs. From the mouth of the man himself. And even moreso, his Second Bill of Rights speech. FDR's New Deal initiatives are perhaps the single most self-evident social democratic policies in US history, and if they are topped it is by other programs he helped lay the groundwork for, programs like Social Security and Medicare.

It is often believed that social democracy is simply the infantilized form of socialism destined to grow into a repressive state. Yet, Joseph Stalin vehemently hated it. He called it "social fascism," a term adopted by worldwide Communist organizations. They believed that because social democracy had a shared corporate model, it stood in the way of a final and complete transition to communism. In other words, communists have believed for many decades that social democracy cannot act as a stepping stone to communism, and in fact further entrenches the present corporate economic system by smoothing over its faults and contenting the proletariat.

Don't take this as an endorsement of Sanders. If you don't support him because you don't like his policies, you shouldn't change your mind based on what label those policies fall under. But I like his positive campaign, and I like the fact that he has been ideologically consistent his entire political career and is one of the few politicians that seems to be working purely because he believes his policies are the best bet for the American people, regardless of whether that is true or not. I feel similarly about Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Cruz seems to be relatively consistent as a fundamentalist conservative, while Rand Paul has been advocating libertarianism even though it does no favors for his political aspirations.

Personally, I don't think any single ideology can actually work on a national level as effective policy. Unhindered social democracy leads to waste and corruption. Unhindered libertarianism leads to ineffectiveness and corruption. Etc. But I think by and large the least productive portion of our electorate is the establishment middle of both parties, neither of which have sound fiscal or social policies. If I could change the parties to my liking, I'd prefer a social democratic leftwing party that sought to fix problems and a libertarian right-wing party that sought to reduce waste and government overreach. I think that is the best of both worlds, where compromise would reach a healthy middle ground. I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but Sanders is a step in the right direction.

[WuDrWu]

SAYS WHO?

And seriously, think about that a little bit.

And someone said it earlier (and better)....it still has VERY LITTLE to do with freedom.

[SHOCKvalue]

"Democratic Socialist"

LOL!

Talk about a contradiction of terms.

Chris Christie is slim for a fat man.

Hillary is fairly honest for a habitual liar.

[shocka khan]

SAYS WHO?

And seriously, think about that a little bit.

And someone said it earlier (and better)....it still has VERY LITTLE to do with freedom.

Doc, I think there's a growing awareness among many people that capitalism has solved few problems yet has created many.

Don't you agree that people ought to have the right to self-determination? You may not like what that looks like, but even a libertarian (and I agree with some of the libertarian points) should say that people have the right to their own self-determination.

Too many greedy people pulling too much profit out of the supply chain. Too many people monetizing (or trying to monetize) processes to squeeze money out of them.

I would propose that most big multi-national corporations do little for the American economy. They outsource processes offshore, build plants and invest offshore and look for the most efficient point for their capital. Also to note, the 'sponsor' companies like (Tata and Wipro) who are NOT American companies, but who apply for (and get H1B visas) to sponsor employees from their native countries who take American jobs (take a look at Disney and their failed sourcing of IT if you want more information). They do not create jobs in the United States, they do not invest in the United States, but they happily take our money and transfer it offshore (because that's where stuff is administered or manufactured).

International barriers used to exist in the good ole' days that do not exist now. Large multi-national corporations are good for countries like China, India and bad for the United States.

That's what is wrong with today's capitalism. Rewarding the wrong people/behaviors and working against the individual worker's self interest.

And that is also why everyone seems to be turning against the 'insiders' this cycle.

[SHOCKvalue]

Doc, I think there's a growing awareness among many people that capitalism has solved few problems yet has created many.

Don't you agree that people ought to have the right to self-determination? You may not like what that looks like, but even a libertarian (and I agree with some of the libertarian points) should say that people have the right to their own self-determination.

Too many greedy people pulling too much profit out of the supply chain. Too many people monetizing (or trying to monetize) processes to squeeze money out of them.

I would propose that most big multi-national corporations do little for the American economy. They outsource processes offshore, build plants and invest offshore and look for the most efficient point for their capital. Also to note, the 'sponsor' companies like (Tata and Wipro) who are NOT American companies, but who apply for (and get H1B visas) to sponsor employees from their native countries who take American jobs (take a look at Disney and their failed sourcing of IT if you want more information). They do not create jobs in the United States, they do not invest in the United States, but they happily take our money and transfer it offshore (because that's where stuff is administered or manufactured).

International barriers used to exist in the good ole' days that do not exist now. Large multi-national corporations are good for countries like China, India and bad for the United States.

That's what is wrong with today's capitalism. Rewarding the wrong people/behaviors and working against the individual worker's self interest.

And that is also why everyone seems to be turning against the 'insiders' this cycle.

What you're talking about isn't capitalism, it is crony capitalism, which is the bipartisan disease that is driving so many people, from both sides of the aisle, towards candidates that are political outsiders or anti-establishment.

[WuDrWu]

Doc, I think there's a growing awareness among many people that capitalism has solved few problems yet has created many.

Don't you agree that people ought to have the right to self-determination? You may not like what that looks like, but even a libertarian (and I agree with some of the libertarian points) should say that people have the right to their own self-determination.

Too many greedy people pulling too much profit out of the supply chain. Too many people monetizing (or trying to monetize) processes to squeeze money out of them.

I would propose that most big multi-national corporations do little for the American economy. They outsource processes offshore, build plants and invest offshore and look for the most efficient point for their capital. Also to note, the 'sponsor' companies like (Tata and Wipro) who are NOT American companies, but who apply for (and get H1B visas) to sponsor employees from their native countries who take American jobs (take a look at Disney and their failed sourcing of IT if you want more information). They do not create jobs in the United States, they do not invest in the United States, but they happily take our money and transfer it offshore (because that's where stuff is administered or manufactured).

International barriers used to exist in the good ole' days that do not exist now. Large multi-national corporations are good for countries like China, India and bad for the United States.

That's what is wrong with today's capitalism. Rewarding the wrong people/behaviors and working against the individual worker's self interest.

And that is also why everyone seems to be turning against the 'insiders' this cycle.

You address a lot of things here......not one of them seems to be addressing my point.

SAYS WHO?

You? kc? Some dumbass random college professional student that gets high every day?

WHO?

Do you get my point yet?

You want to talk about who is doing little for the national economy...how about the Government? That's what's wrong with capitalism....big government!

You bring up some valid concerns. Let's figure out how to win again. And yes, we are rewarding the wrong people and behavior....they are people that refuse to work, habitual child creators on welfare, drug users etc etc. Not people that work for a living.

I'm sure they exist, but I haven't found too many hard working, honest people that haven't been rewarded for their work.

You might think they deserve more....I might think they deserve less...but unless it's YOUR money or MY money, it doesn't seem to be our business, capisce?

[WuDrWu]

What you're talking about isn't capitalism, it is crony capitalism, which is the bipartisan disease that is driving so many people, from both sides of the aisle, towards candidates that are political outsiders or anti-establishment.

God Bless you. I don't know anyone that isn't against those things.

[jdshock]

"Democratic Socialist"

LOL!

Talk about a contradiction of terms.

Chris Christie is slim for a fat man.

Hillary is fairly honest for a habitual liar.

Why is it a contradiction? Democracy and socialism (political scheme and economic scheme) are apples and oranges. Why do they inherently contradict?