Heshouldnotrun.org

He describes himself as a democratic socialist actually, but I know you dont understand nuance very well.

I dont really care about the label though, i care about his policies. His policies dont call for the complete overthrow of private industry in favor of government owned industry. Which is what socialism is. His policies call for a more humane economic model that employs social programs within a capitalistic framework. A mixed economy

I'm not backtracking, i'm explaining the same thing over and over to you in a matter of fact way and you're either not getting it or you're being purposely obtuse. If youre being purposely obtuse it makes me question your agenda and why you have one.

But frankly im tired of these conversations, they're very boring and trite (not just with you but in general)

 

The people who had an issue with that incident have an issue with black people speaking up in general. They see those kind of discussions as "hostile" to white people in a time when the living white people have zero to do with the past. If Bernie lets those women speak he is a traitor to the 14 words and the culture white Americans made.

 

Yes, he's confused on that point and it may do him in. He's really a Social Democrat. Meliai: "Bernie isn't against capitalism, he's for a capitalist society with social programs that work for everyone." In other words, he isn't a socialist, not even a democratic one. Socialism entails collective distribution of the means of production, distribution and exchange, not just welfare state reforms."The major difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is the object of their politics: contemporary social democrats support a welfare state and unemployment insurance as a means to "humanise" capitalism, whereas democratic socialists seek to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system, arguing that any attempt to "humanise" capitalism through regulations and welfare policies would distort the market and create economic contradictions". David Schweickart, (2006). "Democratic Socialism". Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice; Socialism - Wikipedia "Sanders is not a typical socialist. Sure, he believes in a highly regulated and heavily taxed private enterprise, but he does not seem to want the state to own banks and make cars. Considering the negative connotations of 'socialism' in America, it is a bit of a puzzle why Sanders insists on using that word. It would be much less contentious and more correct if he gave his worldview its proper name: not 'democratic socialism,' which implies socialism brought about through a vote, but social democracy."
Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist
http://factmyth.com/factoids/bernie-sanders-is-a-social-democrat-not-a-democratic-socialist/
By continuing to use an inappropriate, loaded label for himself--one which lends itself to exactly the kind of cheap shots you specialize in--he and his supporters risk losing the election over semantics.

 

Terms like "democratic socialism" certainly aren't set in stone. David Schweickart's attempt to define it doesn't carry much weight. Bernie is innovative. He's trying to turn over a new leaf for America and has branded it. That's really all it is. And if he succeeds, voila, a new meaning for the term. Though I do wish he wouldn't, as well, because Americans can't grasp nuance whatsoever. His biggest shortcoming is that he gives people too much credit. But that may only be a shortcoming in retrospect, when Americans find out what kind of open, honest, productive society we could have been living in all along.

 

Well, if Bernie is "innovating" by trying to change the meaning of a loaded label and pinning it on himself, he's foolish. He opens himself up unnecessarily to attack from people like Shaman.

 

Such terms are constantly evolving. Bernie got a little creative. He's not the fool, though, except in that he's somewhat guileless. It's hard to see the lack of understanding in others when that is not a part of your own psychological makeup. I agree, in America you can't open yourself up to attack. You have to appear invulnerable, perfect, despite it all being a grand lie. I guess that's what being a politician is all about. Bernie not being a standard politician sits fine with me, though. I like to think most Americans will take it upon themselves to be mature enough people to see through such phony attacks. And I don't think it helps anything to pander to Americans' immaturity, as is ubiquitously the case. America is 243 years old, and maybe it's time to grow up a little bit.

 

Jesus, sorry for the multiple posts. My internet isn't so good.

 

Fun fact: English is a language where combining words can alter their meaning!

Penultimate means second best. An idiot savant is a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else.

Bernie Sanders uses the term 'democratic socialism' which he uses synonymously with a mixed-market economy, using the Nordic countries as a model. He isn't saying the state should seize the means of production for all industries, the Marxism-Leninism you're conflating it with.

I don't know if you're being intentionally duplicitous when you call him a socialist, but socialism is a word abused often enough to lose all meaning without context.

 

Obama never used the term socialist, and he was called a socialist for 9 years. Redefining the label could be strategic.

People who would never change their mind aren't anyone's target audience.

 

Well, the Democrats can try it, but I think they might as well be working for the MAGA campaign. It's one thing for Republicans to characterize the Dems as socialists; quite another for Democrats to say it's all true, when it isn't. This assumes there is a body of moderate voters who can be swayed in elections, which an abundance of evidence still supports.
Swing voters are extremely real
Moderates: Who Are They, and What Do They Want?
A Harvard-Harris Poll, 64 percent of registered voters said that the Democratic Party is supporting socialism, and that 65 per cent personally favor a capitalist system for America. 64 percent say Democratic Party supports socialism, says poll From past experience, it would be child's play for a Republican political operative to cast Socialism as Venezuela, the way Six-eyed Shaman has tried to do on this forum. Not good. Poll Shows Most Voters See Dem Party as Socialist. Here's Why It's Not Good News for Them In his State of the Union message, Trump fired an opening shot when he warned of a "creeping socialist nightmare." Trump warns of 'socialist nightmare,' predicts 2020 win in off-script speech - Tout sur le Québec

 

People still fear a socialist tax system when there are stories like this. They might just spend money to make money.
Notre Dame: Should billionaires get tax breaks on donations? - CNN


Somehow even in France there are billionaires who can rebuild a church. I doubt any of them are giving up a new Ferrari or beach house to it either. This same class of people puts all the disinformation out there about how unfair it is to tax them. How they are just really smart and they worked hard. If you tax them them then the whole system of democracy and freedom is gone. You are then selfishly stealing from them. Even though it's impossible for there to be another Amazon and ideas and markets coming together like that are one in a million. It's just best to reward the one in a million and hope we can be that then build a society for all.

Jeff Bezos wanted you to think paying a living wage was unfair when he is richer than Bill gates. A man who innovated the world in a incredible way. . Unlike the Jeff who just got a monopoly on out pricing the little guy in a Walmart fashion and he needed Bill Gates to do this.

The average American needs to know that even if you don't like Bernie the general idea is something you should. Left or right seem to agree the working man does not get fair treatment. So does Bernie and the core concept of a social democracy.

 

France isn't a socialist country. Again you accept right wing corruption of the term. Big mistake!

 

I regard this as a trolling attempt. You recently brought this up (again), and it got explained then (again, as that wasn't the first time either) just as well in the following posts as now. Why repeat this shit...

 

Most importantly, we can't let America fall into the hands of someone who isn't funded by Wall Street. Thanks Joe.

 

At least someone is. If anyone can do it he can. And I don't think he would do a half bad job as president.

 

Asmo

6 repeats the same shit because he hasn’t got anything that isn’t shit.

And he does it to mislead and misdirect which propagandists like him always attempt to do.

Thing is that as Okie has pointed out many Americans have been indoctrinated to hate anything that is dubbed ‘socialism’ it's kind of a Pavlovian response that only works because many Americans do not question their brainwashing.

It is also part of the training to see anything slightly left wing as full on Stalinist style socialism although I think fewer Americans have fallen for that lie, because someone would have to work really hard to be irrational to belive that - as 6 does.

 

Okie

It seems to me that most of the supposedly ‘socialist’ Democrats are actually to one degree or another Keynesian in nature. Using the state to regulate capitalism and the market so they benefit all and not just a few.

At one time many Republicans were also Keynesians until the corruption of neoliberalism took hold (as it did with some Democrats)

The thing is that I think we will need to move beyond Keynes to deal with the problems of the 21st Century, and I’m not sure what that model would be.

 

I agree. I left the question mark out for a reason. We all know by now that he knows better.

 

Asmo

The thing is that 6 is not alone, the right as a group seem to have come to the realisation that the economic/social model they have been promoting for so many years is shit, but they seem unable to think beyond it.

For sensible right wingers there seems to have been a steady recognition that the neoliberalism that underpinned most of the rights ideology, hasn’t improved things, it has made things worse, but the reasons for this seems to allude them. So I’ve heard several say things along the lines of - that the problem with neoliberalism was it didn’t distribute its benefits enough without consciously seeming to understand that neoliberalism was never about distributing its benefits, it wasn’t a failing it was built in.

The ideologically committed and those that have gained advantage from it are still clinging to the neoliberal security blanket but even they seem to see how threadbare it has become, because while they don’t seem willing to give it up they can’t defend the use of it.

Other right wingers never did seem to actually grasp what they were supporting and voting for. These people often came across as confused one moment saying they were against the elites, the globalists and the corporations and then voting to give those same groups more wealth, power and influence. They would say they were champions of the free market then go on to cheer protectionism, they would complain about huge debts and then defend their ballooning. They then complain about corrupt politicians and a dysfunctional political system then seem to vote for corrupting politicians that want to make the system more dysfunctional

But without neoliberalism all there seems to be on the right is the politics of grievance, malice and hate and I’m sorry to say what increasingly seems to be racism.