DescentBB

... to Bernie Sanders, according to Clinton ally David Brock-

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.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2 ... hite-ad/1/

[youtube]2nwRiuh1Cug[/youtube]

what utter nonsense. Feeling the Bern, all of a sudden? Sanders aims at helping ALL Americans, the ad is targetting Iowa and New Hampshire, and in no way belittles or diminishes ANYONE. A Clinton flack attacking it doesn't surprise me, because we all know THEY are feeling the Bern, big-time.

Nonsense only if you are a rabid Bernie Fan.

I note that in lockstep, you all seem to have some problem with this ad. Why?

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.

Surely it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that all of the campaign stops those clips came from were most likely in Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the most Wonder-Bread states in the Union, right? Nah, must be that Bernie hates blacks.

(Related note: primaries are that time when Iowans pretend that anyone gives a ★■◆● about them. My mom had to go to Des Moines on business once and said it was just godawful.)

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.

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.

Except for one small problem…that being Sanders doesn’t refer to himself as a social democrat, he refers to himself as a democratic socialist which is socialism without the dictator, but still socialism none the less.

If he can’t get the proper term for his personal politics right, then he probably shouldn’t be put in charge of a large country.

He says he admires the Nordic social democracy model, but then refers to himself as something different…that implies that he admires one thing, but believes something different…very confusing indeed.

Edit:

After reading most of Sanders wiki page, I could never look anybody in the face and say he is not a true died in the wool socialist, I mean…the real thing…all the way…full blown…maybe even the dictator part, if it were to be him…

Kidding about the last part…kinda.

One glimmer of hope in that page was Sanders comparison of guns to a hammer, but now I hear he is even backing off on that.

who did you 'hear' that last part from? That gun position hasn't changed in two decades, and hadn't changed as of the conference call I was in on yesterday. Is this a new thing, or(as I strongly suspect) just scare tactics starting up on the right as they realize Bernie could well be the opponent, not Hillary?

It was something Hillary said during that last debate if I recall correctly.

Spidey wrote:It was something Hillary said during that last debate if I recall correctly.

that would be suspect, out of the gate

Suspect but not necessarily untrue.

woodchip wrote:Suspect but not necessarily untrue.

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.

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.

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?

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/04/iowa ... -children/

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.

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.

Tc I was referring to places like Cuba and such…ever seen what socialism did to agriculture there?

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.

Spidey wrote:Tc I was referring to places like Cuba and such…ever seen what socialism did to agriculture there?

that was the communist/collectivist model. Not the model Sanders is working from, at all.

Yes, I believe we already settled that.

Like I said…someone should tell the poor old guy he is using the wrong terminology.

callmeslick wrote: The man is very politically savvy, I am finding.

He better be as Bloomberg is now saying he will start a third party.

There already is a socialist party.

Spidey wrote:Tc I was referring to places like Cuba and such…ever seen what socialism did to agriculture there?

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: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.

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.

As for the public schools, the only reason the public school system is in trouble is because half the country wants it gone in favor of private schooling for profit, namely conservatives. Of course our public school system is a mess, one party wants to prop it up, the other wants to destroy it no matter what. No one wants to FIX IT. The system can't stand up to all that pushing and pulling, so it's falling apart. I came from the public school system in the 1960's and 70's and I was able to go to college on cheap instate tuition without getting a loan or scholarship or in debt. I also used that education to begin my career. It worked just fine for me.

As for our country's infrastructure, it IS a socialist idea, not pure socialism. Everyone pays taxes to build and maintain that infrastructure for everyone's ease of access and use, both public and private. Can you imagine how this country would have grown up if every road and bridge were private and had tolls, with our capitalists? I think our economy and the ease of which people can move around without exorbitantly paying for it would have made this country a totally different inaccessible place for most people. It certainly wouldn't have allowed for the easy distribution of goods and services for those who are poorer or even those who have small businesses.

So in your opinion, everything people do as a collective is socialism, regardless of the intent.

Spidey wrote:So in your opinion, everything people do as a collective is socialism, regardless of the intent.

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.

"nerdy"



thanks!

Well, you're in the thick of all things political back there slick. Of course you're a political nerd! I'm out here in the West in clueless land.

Even if the next U.S. President will be American Lenin or American Stalin, in country's political system will not change. To change the political system in any country needed historical background. Prerequisites for the 1917 revolution in Russia have accumulated at least 100 years. So you can vote for anyone, for Sanders, for Hillary, for Devil bald, but significant changes in the country from the inside will not be in the foreseeable future.

funny, I have friends in Missisippi, North and South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and THEY all claim to live in 'clueless land' at times.

I don’t know about Pennsylvania, but I can sure vouch for Philadelphia being the land of the clueless.

Watching the morons trying to drive in the snow the other day….

You obviously haven't tried driving around here after a snow or ice storm. Idiots. Danger Will Robinson, danger! Snow is on the ground! This place practically goes into conniptions whenever it snows even a trace. Of course, we do have a lot of steep hills.

Heard this just tonight, Sanders plans to introduce a bill that overturns a previous bill that he supported which provides immunity for firearm manufacturers.

Source was The NewsHour

So There!

No comment huh...

no confirmation

It was a public announcement.

feel free to link the details.

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.

Now that Crazy Bernie looks like he actually has a shot, I guess he needs to offer something to give him creds. with the drooling liberal worker ants. Bill doesn't stand a snowballs chance of passing and Bernie knows it, but what the hey it looks like he is anti gun now.

Yea, he sure is doing a lot of hard work co-signing other peoples work.

(yes I’m referring to the FCC letter that was touted as hard work while also running a campaign)

Spidey 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.

lets see, over the past 4 nights, I've watched Fox, CNN, MSNBC and PBS. No mention on any of them. What 'news' is
it all over. Bottom line is that Bernie is firmly opposed to making strict or radical gun law a plank of any platform. His
reasoning is that the cultural differences among states are too profound to have a one-size fits all approach. He wants to, and will,
I suspect, focus heavily on the economy and the effect reckless foreign policy has on the economic health of the nation.

>sigh<

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/b ... eal-218338