What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who is Bernie Sanders?

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
29,398
Reaction score
13,673
Points
1,090
How Bernie Sanders learned to be a real politician

"Sanders was struggling to square his revolutionary zeal with his overwhelming rejection at the polls—and this was reflected in a regular ritual. Many mornings, Sanders would greet his roommate with a simple statement: "We're not crazy."

It's interesting how far the socialist movement has come in the US in such a short time. People who were once considered loons are now running the government.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
29,398
Reaction score
13,673
Points
1,090
Who here agrees with this quote from Bernie?

"The incident only hardened Sanders' skepticism of corporate power. Television, Sanders wrote in 1979, was a particularly pernicious evil, rooted in "the well-tested Hitlerian principle that people should be treated as morons and bombarded over and over again with the same simple phrases and ideas." Television stations were "attempting to brainwash people into submission and helplessness"

Is corporate America equivalent to Nazism? Could they be purified by having government take them over?
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
29,398
Reaction score
13,673
Points
1,090
"That's what distinguished [Sanders] from leftists who were more invested in the symbolism than in the outcome," Sugarman says. "He read Marx, he understood Marx's critique of capitalism—but he also understood Marx doesn't give you too many prescriptions of how society should go forward."

This in an interesting point. Marx did not really lay out a ground work on how to make his political system work. Has Bernie figured it out?
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
29,398
Reaction score
13,673
Points
1,090
Here is another interesting quote.

"Sanders suggested that dwelling on local issues was perhaps counterproductive, because it distracted activists from the real root of the problem—Washington. Sanders started a small monthly zine to promote the Liberty Union's agenda. It was called Movement."

Is local politics as useless as Sanders seems to think it is? If the federal politics continually infringe upon local politics, then the answer would have to be a resounding yes.
 

konradv

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
30,523
Reaction score
6,533
Points
1,130
Location
Baltimore
The kinds of things he's saying aren't that far removed from what the Tea Party is saying.
 

Agit8r

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
12,147
Reaction score
2,199
Points
245
The main thing that has served to inoculate the public against the fear of socialism, is that the right wing has told the people that almost every useful function of government is "socialist."

If Bernie wins the presidency, the right has no one to blame but themselves.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
84,699
Reaction score
28,918
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
It's interesting how far the socialist movement has come in the US in such a short time. .
Very true, and it's clear that more and more people are open to discussing it, defending it, and even promoting it.

So why is that?

I think the Right has had a significant hand in this. It could be argued that constantly screaming "socialism" every time a government program is mentioned has made many people think, "well, I think that program is okay, and they're calling it socialism, so maybe socialism is okay too."

This could pretty easily end up being a self-inflicted wound.
.
 

NightFox

Wildling
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
11,055
Reaction score
2,638
Points
280
Location
North beyond the Wall
It's interesting how far the socialist movement has come in the US in such a short time. .
Very true, and it's clear that more and more people are open to discussing it, defending it, and even promoting it.

So why is that?

I think the Right has had a significant hand in this. It could be argued that constantly screaming "socialism" every time a government program is mentioned has made many people think, "well, I think that program is okay, and they're calling it socialism, so maybe socialism is okay too."

This could pretty easily end up being a self-inflicted wound.
.
Naw, IMHO the reason it's being "accepted" is that the Millennials weren't around during the cold war and thus were not properly educated on the evils of socialism, that's why Bernie has so many supporters that are young folks. A nice vacation to North Korea or Venezuela will cure them of their silly notions regarding socialism and the snake oil that ole Bernie is trying to sell 'em. :)
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,675
Points
280
Bernie the musician.

trumpet.jpg
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
29,398
Reaction score
13,673
Points
1,090
The kinds of things he's saying aren't that far removed from what the Tea Party is saying.

There is a major difference.

The Tea Party wishes to return power to the states and end federal despotism. However, the left simply wants control of the federal government and I guess take over corporate America. Somehow that will purify them I suppose. The left has no issue with forcing anyone to do anything.
 

imawhosure

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
7,994
Reaction score
1,760
Points
360
Here is another interesting quote.

"Sanders suggested that dwelling on local issues was perhaps counterproductive, because it distracted activists from the real root of the problem—Washington. Sanders started a small monthly zine to promote the Liberty Union's agenda. It was called Movement."

Is local politics as useless as Sanders seems to think it is? If the federal politics continually infringe upon local politics, then the answer would have to be a resounding yes.

The kinds of things he's saying aren't that far removed from what the Tea Party is saying.

What have you been doing? playing the Tea Party LP backwards? You know that's not good for the stylus on your turn table, right? :D

All the left/liberalism/socialism really is comes down to one word.......insurance. They want you to give up more of your money for the insurance policy of...........free college, free healthcare, a protected minimum lifestyle, everybody is insured.

In the process, they make it virtually impossible for anyone to overcome their insurance premiums, and live a good life; better than average, by your own hard work and elbow grease.

Many people; liberals included, have asked me on more than one occasion that "if Socialism/liberalism is bad, why do so many billionaires subscribe to it, and give money to candidates that support it?"

That answer is easy peezy! Because they already have theirs! You see, if you have a 3 Billion dollars, unless the government comes up with a confiscation scheme, they can raise taxes to 70%, and you still have that 3 billion dollars. All they are doing is taxing the wealth that the money creates. Let us say that the 3 billion dollars is returning an average of 5%. If my math is correct, that would be 150 million dollars. So, if I manage to tax the capital gains (which they are really only talking about income tax rates, not capital gains, but for the sake of debate, we will make the capital gains rate at 70% to make leftist/libby's/Socialists happy) 70%, they would be taxed 105 million samolians; leaving them a paltry 45 million to live on for the year. And oh yes, they still have those 3 billion dollars!

Now, lets look at all of us! At 70%, how long would it take you to acquire your first 5 million, let alone your 1st billion? Odds are sooooooooo long on that ever happening, even if your name was Bill Gates re-incarnated, it would be a pipe dream.

This is why in Socialist societies, there is no middle class perse, just rich and poor. It is also why you should know with absolute conviction, that this country has been moving left since the 2nd term of Clinton. Why? Because it is not the rich or poor who are under pressure economically, it is we, the middle class! The rich are getting richer, and the poor are having more of us join them!
 

konradv

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
30,523
Reaction score
6,533
Points
1,130
Location
Baltimore
The left has no issue with forcing anyone to do anything.
That's bullshit. You're jumpinp off the deep end when you use absolutes. Care to amend your statement? All I have to do is find one exception and you're proven to be either a liar or a fool.
 

konradv

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
30,523
Reaction score
6,533
Points
1,130
Location
Baltimore
It's interesting how far the socialist movement has come in the US in such a short time. .
Very true, and it's clear that more and more people are open to discussing it, defending it, and even promoting it. So why is that? I think the Right has had a significant hand in this. It could be argued that constantly screaming "socialism" every time a government program is mentioned has made many people think, "well, I think that program is okay, and they're calling it socialism, so maybe socialism is okay too."
Not to mention that many have noticed the hypocrisy of "say 'NO' to socialism, but don't touch my Medicare".
 

imawhosure

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
7,994
Reaction score
1,760
Points
360
It's interesting how far the socialist movement has come in the US in such a short time. .
Very true, and it's clear that more and more people are open to discussing it, defending it, and even promoting it. So why is that? I think the Right has had a significant hand in this. It could be argued that constantly screaming "socialism" every time a government program is mentioned has made many people think, "well, I think that program is okay, and they're calling it socialism, so maybe socialism is okay too."
Not to mention that many have noticed the hypocrisy of "say 'NO' to socialism, but don't touch my Medicare".


That is because it was FORCED, we had no choice.

Everybody is different, but if they want to give me back all the medicare money paid in by me, and on my behalf if any with a 5% interest, I am fine with that!
 

imawhosure

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
7,994
Reaction score
1,760
Points
360
It's interesting how far the socialist movement has come in the US in such a short time. .
Very true, and it's clear that more and more people are open to discussing it, defending it, and even promoting it. So why is that? I think the Right has had a significant hand in this. It could be argued that constantly screaming "socialism" every time a government program is mentioned has made many people think, "well, I think that program is okay, and they're calling it socialism, so maybe socialism is okay too."
Not to mention that many have noticed the hypocrisy of "say 'NO' to socialism, but don't touch my Medicare".


And oh, by the way, that is what Socialist programs do, FORCE you! You are paying in YOUR money to their insurance program that they think is best for you. And if you die before getting a nickel? They keep your money and spend it, or give it to someone else.

All these programs are is INSURANCE; forced insurance at that. You don't like insurance companies? Then you can't like the government then, can you! When the program runs short of money, what do they do? Raise your premiums! (taxes) And know what? You can't even look for a cheaper insurance company, lol.
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
5,499
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
There is nothing generally "wrong" with socialism, or the hundreds of chunks of socialism that might be introduced into what is nominally a capitalist economy, provided they are implemented legally, constitutionally, and voluntarily. A convent is a great example of socialism, where everyone voluntarily participates.

Social Security is a socialist initiative, as is Medicare. The National Labor Relations Act (which gave workers the RIGHT, under some circumstances to force an employer to negotiate a contract) is a socialist initiative. "Single Payer" health insurance would be a socialist initiative.

Several western European countries (including Britain and Canada) have adopted a whole cornucopia of socialist elements, that have not (yet) brought their countries to ruin.

So what's wrong with implementing these ideas, programs, and institutions in the U.S.? First of all, there is no provision in the United States Constitution that allows them to exist here. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution defines precisely what the Congress is permitted to do, and the Tenth Amendment states that the Federal government is limited to the powers that are expressly granted to it in the Constitution. So Social Security, the NLRA, and who whole raft of other Federal government programs are blatantly unconstitutional. Of course, the USSC has, by a nauseating library of rationalizations, sanctioned essentially all of them at one time or another. But if it takes 50 pages to explain why some program does not contravene the Constitution, you can be fairly certain that it does.

Second, Socialism is immoral. It posits that people are entitled to certain things, benefits, and considerations, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY EXIST, and not because of any merit or act on the part of the beneficiaries. Further, the cost of these things, benefits, and considerations can be extorted from innocent victims by force of law, under threat of incarceration, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO PAY. So the productive citizen has money taken from him against his will to pay for food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care, and cell phones, for complete strangers who have done nothing to "earn" them, and if he refuses to pay, he can have his assets confiscated, his earnings garnished, and ultimately his freedom extinguished by being incarcerated.

Socialists love the word, "free." Bernie Sanders wants "free" college education for everyone. But by "free" he means that the cost will be extorted from unsuspecting, innocent citizens who have the temerity to earn a decent wage.

As P.J. O'Rourke once poignantly observed, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's 'free.'"
 

williepete

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
1,394
Points
380
Location
Troposphere
He didn't earn a steady paycheck until late in life when he landed a government job.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.




--------------------------
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$260.01
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top