Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2 ... hite-ad/1/Key Clinton ally David Brock, who's behind the Correct the Record super PAC, told the Associated Press that the "bizarre" ad was a "significant slight to the Democratic base."
"From this ad it seems black lives don't matter much to Bernie Sanders," Brock said.
ummm, Social Democracy isn't true Marxist Socialism, so the whole comment is off base. You are no doubt correct that someone will try and paint old Bernie with the Socialist brush. I suspect he's made it through that challenge once or twice already.Spidey wrote:I guarantee someone will remind Iowa that the farms and ranches are some of the first things that go under socialism, so maybe someone should tell Sanders he is using the wrong term to self describe his politics, because someone is going to make a lot of hay with his improper term as well as its implications.
that would be suspect, out of the gateSpidey wrote:It was something Hillary said during that last debate if I recall correctly.
wasn't what the candidate stated in a meeting two days ago. I'll stick with that until something changes. He is strongly opposed to pursuing side issues that are contentious, likely knowing full well that the main thrust is contentious enough. The man is very politically savvy, I am finding.woodchip wrote:Suspect but not necessarily untrue.
Where did you come with that Spidey? It's not been socialism that has destroyed farming and ranches, it's been the big corporations who've caused the downfall of every small independent farm and cattle rancher in this country. Certainly NOT socialism. I'd also like to remind people that private business has profited from a little past socialism, like our roads, interstates, airports and other infrastructure. Why do you think the Iowa Corn Lobby has been courting Ted Cruz and not Donald Trump, a capitalist by the way?Spidey wrote:I guarantee someone will remind Iowa that the farms and ranches are some of the first things that go under socialism, so maybe someone should tell Sanders he is using the wrong term to self describe his politics, because someone is going to make a lot of hay with his improper term as well as its implications.
Let's not forget a huge part of our military budget goes to private contractors. I worked for years collecting money from the military. The government already indirectly employs massive numbers of our citizenship. It's like socialism re-branded as something more palatable to those who never studied political science or economics. I'm still indirectly employed by the government, working for non-profit research that largely exists through government grants.tunnelcat wrote:I'd also like to remind people that private business has profited from a little past socialism, like our roads, interstates, airports and other infrastructure.
that was the communist/collectivist model. Not the model Sanders is working from, at all.Spidey wrote:Tc I was referring to places like Cuba and such…ever seen what socialism did to agriculture there?
He better be as Bloomberg is now saying he will start a third party.callmeslick wrote: The man is very politically savvy, I am finding.
And have you seen what corporate farming has done to independent farming? Destroyed it and the land the corporations have abused to do their so called "farming". Perhaps it's needed to feed our large population, but it will eventually be our detriment in the long run.Spidey wrote:Tc I was referring to places like Cuba and such…ever seen what socialism did to agriculture there?
Bernie Sanders is NOT a "socialist". He's a Democratic Socialist. Democratic socialists don't support a single-party system and the centralism of government. He's not advocating a Leninist or Stalinist version of Socialism. Be that as it may, the swing towards Laissez Faire Capitalism we have going on now WILL result in another Great Depression in our foreseeable future. Hopefully not in my lifetime though. That's just the way things work when people do things driven by greed and the way our economic and political system works. Our system likes to make big bounces like a car with only springs for it's suspension. There are no shock absorbers to dampen the bounces because people keep taking them off. So in the future, another Great Depression is bound to happen, then we'll see that inevitable knee jerk swing back to the socialistic FDR-types of government regulation in reaction, yet again. The large support for Sanders is evidence of that. Too bad we can't work together to take the best of both economic systems for the benefit of everyone, bringing about less suffering and reactionary political policies. Sh*t! I forgot, we're all humans. Nothing ever changes.Spidey wrote:And…Geezee do I have to explain for the umpteen time why infrastructure and municipal services and such are not socialism.
Not every single thing done by a collective qualifies as socialism…get over it already. Socialism has very specific goals and things done for goals other than those specific things do not qualify. (of course trying to explain how other “isms” have specific meanings fell on deaf ears)
There is one shining example of true socialism in this country…the public school system, where not only is public education a main tenet of socialism, but the goals are exactly what socialism is designed to do. (create equality and fairness) What the fack does the military have to do with fairness and equality. The military has a goal…defending the country, not some grandiose philosophic goal. And yes…it’s a collective, but so is chipping in for a keg…is that also socialism. So I guess some business profits from socialism when some kids chip in and by some beer.
Just try to remember this when trying to identify socialism…socialism is a political and economic system designed to advance social goals, not just any system designed to get work/something done, such as trash collection. No social goals in trash collection, just good old practicality.
There is socialism in this country, but you have to know how to identify it.
I think, as with 'liberal' or 'conservative', definitions evolve. Would Marx envision Democratic Socialism as the outgrowth of the ideas he put forth in Das Kapital, or the Communist Manifesto? Probably, but they are far different from his strict ideal of the state owing all means of production. That got fleshed out as collectivist Communism, and it didn't ever work too well. On the other hand, most Western nations have co-opted some of the Marxist ideals of protecting the workers from the tyranny of the wealthy, in the form of graduated income taxation, assorted social 'safety nets' and, in some cases, selective nationalization of industries, mostly utilities.Spidey wrote:So in your opinion, everything people do as a collective is socialism, regardless of the intent.
I'm not going all nerdy like slick, but yes, IMO, anything that a society does for itself as a whole as a collective action or project and that is paid for by taxing or requiring payment by that collective's members, is socialistic in nature. That's not a bad thing either. It can be a good thing to get something necessary built that's beneficial for all of society as a whole. Sometimes the whole can accomplish what the individual can't.Spidey wrote:So in your opinion, everything people do as a collective is socialism, regardless of the intent.
Of course, we do have a lot of steep hills. 
lets see, over the past 4 nights, I've watched Fox, CNN, MSNBC and PBS. No mention on any of them. What 'news' isSpidey wrote:For god sakes...I figured you had a hotline.
No, I'm not going to link the story, it's already all over the news and very public knowledge at this point.
