Will the ‘S’ Word Ultimately Doom Bernie Sanders?
“I’m a Democratic Socialist.”
Despite the crowds of devoted followers who show up at his campaign events, not everyone on the left is convinced that Bernie Sanders could close the deal with America, should he somehow beat the Clinton machine.
Bernie’s biggest problem, according to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, is the way Sanders describes himself in political terms:
Why Bernie Sanders isn’t going to be president, in five words
Here’s an exchange from Bernie Sanders’s appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday:
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?
@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
— Meet the Press (@meetthepress) October 11, 2015
And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn’t getting elected president.
Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.
Here’s a video of the moment on Meet the Press, via The Gateway Pundit:
Progressive activists who love Bernie will reject all of this. They’re convinced that Sanders will lead them to a utopia of economic equality and social justice.
Our old pal DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn’t seem quite so sure about that.
Blake Seitz of the Washington Free Beacon reports:
DNC Chair Won’t Say if Bernie Sanders is Electable
The s-word is back to haunt Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.). The DNC chair wouldn’t say on Sunday if Bernie Sanders would be able to win in a general election given his socialist views.
Twice Wasserman Schultz was asked about Sanders’ electability on CNN’s State of the Union, and twice she ducked the question to bash Republican presidential candidates for holding what she says are extreme views.
Watch Debbie squirm:
It’ll be fascinating to see how this is handled in the debate tonight.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
He’s a “Democratic Socialist” as in the Democratic Socialists of America. In the early 1970s, the old Socialist Party split. The majority rejected the USSR and its military goals, and renamed themselves Social Democrats USA. The minority who remained faithful to the USSR left and formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which later became DSA. That’s Bernie Sanders’ home; the diehard pro-communists who stuck with Brezhnev even after Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Vietnam, and all the rest. There was never a Soviet atrocity that fazed them, or a Soviet goal that they didn’t support.
Hey…”omelet…broken eggs…” all that…
No, he’s a Democratic socialist in the way nine out of ten of the world’s Happiest Nations are socialistic, (Google Forbes list of The World’s Happiest Countries Page 2 of 4 – Forbes.com).
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Australia
New Zealand
Sweden
Canada
Switzerland
Netherlands
…the US is 10th.
They are all borderline socialist democratic states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth.
They are also nations with abundant civil liberties. Health care coverage for everyone. And economies that are competitive in the world. Plus the Scandanavian nations have a hell of a lot of good crime fiction novelists, symbolic of civilized nations.
Maybe Bernie’s campaign song should be:
Forget Your Troubles,
Come-on Be Happy,
Throw All Your Capatilist Politicians Away.
No, he’s not a “Democratic Socialist” as in the Democratic Socialists of America?! Is that really what you’re claiming?! Or are you claiming that the DSA is not the “remnant”, in its founder’s words, who stayed loyal to the USSR after the majority of the Socialist Party rejected it?
“And economies that are competitive in the world.”
…if that’s true, why is US still the top destination for medical expertise and job opportunities for immigrants from both developed and third world countries?
I’ll take a guess: Disneyland!
How about another educated guess: “they don’t have enough funded seats for their own well-qualified medical students, which is why there are so many Swedes studying in Poland and other Central EU medical schools right now.
http://www.valuemd.com/main-european-medical-schools-forum/216277-med-education-finland-norway-scandinavian-countries.html
How about another educated guess based on the 2nd educated guess: we have a LOT more money circulating in our medical sphere because we get charged a LOT more money for basic medical services and MEDICINE in the US.
Look at this and you’ll see how much more we pay (me included, as my expensive Kaiser Permanente health plan comes out of my pocket):
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/
It’s true the US has the best and most advanced facilities for treating degenerative diseases like cancer; but for the majority of ailments and surgical procedures, patients fare just as well in the ‘socialistic’ medical facilities — sometimes better if longevity is a byproduct of good medical treatment.
If you think that health care is expensive now then wait and see what socialism does to the cost. Exhibit A: Obamacare is a disaster. And, Socialist France had to back off of its high tax rate to keep people from leaving France.
If we rid ourselves of government involvement which ALWAYS drives up costs and only use health insurance companies for major medical then then both middle men are cut out of their PROFITS.
Why not use an HSA? Socialism is never the answer to any perceived problem.
BTW, Here’s your Utopia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/11934897/Amsterdam-dance-music-festival-allows-people-to-carry-up-to-five-ecstasy-pills.html
You failed to mention all those nations are small in population and effectively homogenous in race and ethnicity. In other words, everyone’s family.
In Obama’s America, everyone is now at each other’s throat.
Like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, Socialism is a fantasy for little children.
The Tooth Fairy leaves you money under your pillow. The Socialist takes your money and gives the pillow to someone else.
Takes your teeth, too. Just ask the Brits:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=6863228
And if you think the British self-extractions have much to do with England’s ‘everyone covered’ medical system, Google ‘self tooth extraction US’ and see how many YouTube videos and how-to articles you get of Americans yanking them at home.
And — There are approx 3000 malpractice suits against dentists in the US yearly (there’s probably more, but that’s what dental organizations are reporting).
http://www.ablminc.org/Model_Curriculum_LMME_2010/BOOK_MedMal%20Survival%20Handbook_2007/Ch43-A04438.pdf
I bet there’s more do-it-yourself dentists per population in the capitalist US, especially if you add in the ‘teeth whitening’ percentage listed in the article link you posted.
It might be a fantasy for little children but it is a reality for elite tyrants.
The Obama phone folks have been replaced by numbskulls demanding free college.
How is it that he doesn’t choke saying the oath of office? There is nothing about socialism which is constitutional.
Really? What’s unconstitutional about it? What’s unconstitutional about any ideology?
I hate socialism as much as anybody does, but I can’t see why a socialist could not honestly swear to uphold the constitution.
The Constitution Of The United States Of America:
There can be no Socialism in America without violating the Constitution.
Socialism means, by definition, that the government strips the right to own property out of the hands of the citizens.
If that’s not unconstitutional, then nothing is.
1. Socialism aims toward a society without property at all, but no socialist proposes implementing such a society immediately. Even in the darkest days of the USSR and China people owned things. Even in the purest socialism ever attempted, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, people owned things.
2. It is possible to implement the sort of quasi-socialism that exists in many European countries without any constitutional amendments.
3. It is probably even possible to implement outright communism without any constitutional amendments.
4. If it proves impossible to do that, so what? What is wrong with advocating constitutional amendments? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who would like to amend the constitution can’t swear to uphold it?!
No. It is not possible.
Under the Constitution the government has NO authority whatsoever to own “the means of production and distribution of goods.”
And by the way. You don’t know shit what it is to live under a socialist/communist dictatorship.
I was born and raised in Cuba, and for most of the time, you had no right to own anything. People who managed to leave the country had to relinquish even their clothes and spoons. If a spouse or relative stayed, they had to pay the government half of their own belongings if they wanted to keep them. That included even their underwear.
Trying to own “means of production and distribution” would land your arse in jail.
Don’t come here pretending expertise on stuff you have no clue about.
Under the constitution the government has the right to own whatever it likes. There is no restriction on what the government may own. On top of that, the constitution explicitly recognises the government’s right to forcibly purchase whatever it wants for public use.
People in Cuba have money, which is theirs. They use this money to buy things, which become theirs. Communism has not progressed to the point where there is no ownership at all. It can’t, no matter how much its adherents may wish it. Even under Pol Pot there was property. It’s inherent in human nature.
“And by the way. You don’t know shit what it is to live under a socialist/communist dictatorship.”
IT’s a false analogy to compare the Scandinavian socialist democracies with Cuba. Like saying Pedro must be a dictator criminal because his brother Fidel is one.
The problem when Castro came to power was Castro establishing a dictatorship.
Imagine what a paradise Cuba could be now if after Batista was removed a democratic-socialist government was installed based on the Scandinavian models. Then maybe the casinos would have remained open (keeping a lot of Italian Americans employed as dealers and croupiers) Cuban cigars wouldn’t cost a fortune, and the Bay of Pigs would reference a festive beach BBQ and not a failed American invasion.
The world has significantly changed since the 1960s. But you seem to have a time hitch in your giddyup. Time to saddle up and move into the future, podner.
There can be no socialism in the US without violating the Constitution?
Ever hear of Social Security? The US Post Office?
You don’t know the meaning of “Socialism.”
Get a dictionary.
I have heard socialist wannabees opine that acceptance of the virtues of any government project or program involving the common good—road construction, harbor dredging, national air traffic control system, standardized weights & measures—means that one has already accepted socialism.
A reductio ad absurdum argument of this sort is just that—absurd. Its obvious implication is that any government which exists for any purpose other than the levy of taxes is socialist. And that’s absurd.
The Communist Manifesto devotes considerable blather to an attempt to convince the reader that he’s already a communist, but doesn’t realize it. Absurd then, absurd now.
In principle, once one has accepted the idea that government may take what belongs to one person for the good of another, one has accepted socialism. The rest is merely haggling over the details.
Really? What’s unconstitutional about it? What’s unconstitutional about any ideology?
It’s not about mere ideology.
It’s about a Federal government of enumerated powers. “Total control by a Central Committee of all economic transactions” isn’t one of the enumerated powers granted to the government.
But any socialist system lacking that control is inconceivable, even in theory. Socialism is about control. It assumes that intelligent direction can make a better job of the national economy (and, by logical extension, society in general) than the natural laws of economics. And it makes that assumption without any evidence or empirical proof—perhaps the reason intellectuals (who try to solve the world’s problems by “thinking” about them, à la Aristotle) are such suckers for the simpleminded socialist dream.
The Surveillance State and the Authoritarian State are absolute requirements for any Socialist system. If it doesn’t have those, it ain’t socialist, no matter what a Party slogan may claim.
“Total control by a Central Committee of all economic transactions” isn’t one of the enumerated powers granted to the government.
At least as regards interstate transactions, it certainly is. And transactions within a state can be controlled by a state committtee. There’s nothing in communist doctrine that says the total control must be at the federal level. But if you want to have it at the federal level, and the courts won’t let you use the interstate commerce clause to do it, you can always amend the constitution.
The Surveillance State and the Authoritarian State are absolute requirements for any Socialist system. If it doesn’t have those, it ain’t socialist, no matter what a Party slogan may claim.
Many countries manage to be pretty socialist without these things.
Clowns to the left of me
..Jokers to the right
….Here I am stuck in the middle with you again.
In real time, now in 2015, in terms of daily living, what basic rights do we have here in the US that citizens of Democratic Socialist countries lack?
They have guaranteed freedom of speech and the press.
They have the same or better Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, and Patent Protection, and aggressive Copyright Piracy laws.
http://info.articleonepartners.com/top-5-countries-in-ip-rights-protection/
You can drink alcoholic beverages without fear of arrest. You can buy and use birth control devices without fear of arrest. The ‘socialistic’ nations all have the same legal presumption of innocence in criminal legal matters. You can own real property and will it to your descendants. And you can majority vote in the people you want to govern you.
You can practice or not practice the religion of your choice or non-choice.
So where’s the ‘evil’ lurking in socialistic shadows in those countries that hasn’t jumped up and bitten those freedoms in the ass? How is it any worse for individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness to live in a socialistic democracy then in a capitalistic nation whose Raison d’être is to devour competition – which often means assaulting any fellow citizens who stands in the way?
Are you saying if you were transported to Sweden or Denmark or Norway, with the same resources you have now, the same level of education, you couldn’t or wouldn’t be able to successfully and happily survive there only because of its socialistic democratic government?
Because he’s a traitor and a sociopath.
How it’s handled in the debate?
You’re kidding right?
Conventional Wisdom:
1950s: A Catholic will never be elected President.
1970s: An Actor will never be elected President.
2000s: A Black will never be elected President.
2010s: A Democratic Socialist will never be elected President.
Tried and true wisdom:
Don’t vote for a socialist.
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
-Thomas Sowell
Shush, Jennifer! Those Scandanavian socialist nation that have thrived since WWII will hear you, and throw up their arms in defeat.
Why aren’t they happy? This sounds so idyllic…
“In Sweden, there’s been a sharp rise in political violence in the country, with crimes carried out by radical groups making headlines. However, what’s unusual is that one of the most violent extremist organizations in Sweden aligns itself not with Nazism and the far-right, but with anti-fascism and the far-left.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MYMVfyHi0
Well, isn’t this special?…
“In Sweden, giving to charity, absurdly, came to be considered a lack of solidarity, since it undermined the need for the welfare state.” – Roland Martinsson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Poirier_Martinsson
No!…Yes, it’s true!
Free Market Sweden, Social Democratic America
http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2011/10/12/free-market-sweden-social-democratic-america
Europe’s Broken Economies
http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2010/10/06/europes-broken-economies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdBn7MUM3Yo
We may never never meet
On the bumpy road of life
Still I’ll always, always keep the memory of
The way you twist the facts
The way you underhandly pick & chose
The memory of all that
No no they can’t take that away from me
It’s easy to pick out negative opinion with the right search criteria – but ascribing those negative criticisms as a byproduct of the ‘socialistic’ element of those nations is a lot of horse do-do.
Let’s start with Sweden as an uncharitable Democratic Socialistic country:
Here’s what Forbes (owned by a rich capitalist) has to say about the charitable impulse in Sweden, and other developed nations with strong social safety nets who provide free health care, high welfare assistance, generous unemployment assistance:
They have lower rates of charitable giving; but higher rates of volunteerism.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
On volunteerism alone, the Netherlands comes in first, Sweden second, followed by the US. That means the ‘socialists’ get their asses out there to help people in need – to help them get around, to cook and clean and transport them places. They don’t just toss pennies into the poor box at church – where, by the way, Americans give their highest percent of charity money, guilt money for salvation..
And for standard of living, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands lead the Human Development Index (HDI) – a composite measure of three basic dimensions of human development: health, education and income. The US Sweden and Netherlands are tightly bunched behind.
Those countries are safer too. Calculating ‘Murders per 100,000/population’: US: 5; Sweden: 1; Netherlands: 1; Switzerland: 1; Norway: 2; Denmark: 1.
Unregulated capitalism and unregulated socialism both end up spiriling out of control. Both need elements of the other system to govern large numbers of people fairly.
You didn’t read the info I posted. I did not pick and chose. I gave you a multitidue of examples…
“..other developed nations with strong social safety nets who provide free health care, high welfare assistance, generous unemployment assistance:
They have lower rates of charitable giving; but higher rates of volunteerism.”
Without money they have to volunteer. And with a minuscule military they must rely on other nations to pay for, in time and money, the world’s defense needs.
“On volunteerism alone, the Netherlands comes in first, Sweden second, followed by the US. That means the ‘socialists’ get their asses out there to help people in need – to help them get around, to cook and clean and transport them places. They don’t just toss pennies into the poor box at church – where, by the way, Americans give their highest percent of charity money, guilt money for salvation..”
You want to volunteer penance-guilt money-to the government? Go ahead. Make my day. I won’t.
I pay no penance to God. I give out of a heart of love for God and others-both of my time and money.
I give one-on-one to those in need and not via any coercive government bureaucracy where tax money is despoiled.
Now, the pièce de Marxism:
“Unregulated capitalism and unregulated socialism both end up spiriling (sic) out of control. Both need elements of the other system to govern large numbers of people fairly.”
Sounds just like The Thumb on the HDI of The People’s Republic of China!
and
“..and other developed nations with strong social safety nets who provide free health care, high welfare assistance, generous unemployment assistance:”
“free health care”?! You’re kidding right? Or are you delusional?
Fellow-traveler socialist humanism means that the Collective chooses what it means to be human and also who will be selected to receive and who will have to pay for humanism’s materialism.
This must sound so appealing…to “useful idiots” those…
“Clowns to the left of me
..Jokers to the right”
~~~
When the Dutch aren’t drinking, smoking pot, shooting heroin and prostituting themselves a tiny percentage of the diminutive population may be volunteering, their money already confiscated to pay for the “free” stuff.
You can purchase these books at the Amazon link posted above right:
Read Daniel Hannan’s
The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America, London: HarperCollins. 2010
http://www.amazon.com/New-Road-Serfdom-Warning-America/dp/0061956945/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444824155&sr=1-3&keywords=daniel+hannan
The Wilder Shores of Marx: Journeys in a Vanishing World by Anthony Daniels
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wilder-Shores-Marx-Vanishing/dp/009174153X
Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444824216&sr=1-3&keywords=theodore+dalrymple
BTW: I am half Swedish and half Dutch. There is no way I would live in either country due to its socialist type governments. I love my freedom. I am not a materialist.
My brother and his family spent over 15 years in the Netherlands doing church planting. The people in Europe by his account have sold their souls for insurance against material loss. The majority of Europeans are atheistic-nihilistic materialists.
I think many people in America conflate Rick Steve’s Europe gushing travel videos with a panacean fantasy of Europe. I’ve met people who truly believe that Europeanization is the way to go. I would not move there for the sentimentality of materialism.
“Democratic” socialism of Europe is anti-human in that you become a number to be dealt with inside the Collective –a Number that will riot if cuts have to be made. And, they will.
Furthermore, the U.S. and Sweden, for example, have vastly different scales of economy.
The word “Democratic” is used to mollify voters so that they would entertain the idea of getting “free” stuff for huge amounts of bureaucracy, withering amounts of freedom and the decimation of any sense of individual human flourishing. “Seize the Dependence” is Europe’s cry.
And, you didn’t mention the financially teetering-on-bankruptcy Democratic socialist countries of Greece, Portugal, Spain…
You and Bernie sanders might like to live in Albania.
RE This: “Fellow-traveler socialist humanism means that the Collective chooses what it means to be human and also who will be selected to receive and who will have to pay for humanism’s materialism.”
Ah, the CCC – ‘Collective Conservative Chestnut.’ Collectivism, a term popularized by Ayn Rand (more about Aynnie-pie to come) holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests.
Waddya know. We have Collectivism here in the US. It’s called the U.S. Marine Corps. Semper Fidelis (“Always Faithful”) To the Collective!
And RE This: “When the Dutch aren’t drinking, smoking pot, shooting heroin and prostituting themselves a tiny percentage of the diminutive population may be volunteering, their money already confiscated to pay for the “free” stuff.”
The Dutch: the Netherlands, a tiny country compared to the US, is the world’s second-largest exporter of food and agricultural products, after the US. How are all those pot-head-drunk-prostitutes managing that? And the Netherlands is a very densely populated country for its size, 16 million people squeezed into 16,033 square miles (13,000 square miles if you don’t include the water areas). Yet it has one of the lowest international homicides rates in the world, at 0.9 per 100,000 population (the other European ‘collectives’ as you call them are bunched in the same low percentile).
Now take the US overall: 4.7 intentional homicides per 100,000; or cites like Detroit (54.%) or New Orleans (53.2%) or St. Louis and Baltimore, both over 35% – (2013 statistics).
So tell me, Jennifer, what’s a worse social evil, intentional murder or drinking cocktails or having a hit of pot? And as to the Dutch drinking excessively, compared to other European nations, they’re at the bottom of the list:
“…according to the World Health Organization’s annual report into alcohol consumption, Dutch people ranked in the bottom of the list with their drinking, consuming an average of 9,9 litres of pure alcohol yearly. The European average is 10,9 litres a year.” – See more at:
http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-page/news/netherlands-one-lowest-rates-alcohol-consumption-europe
And what’s your objection to prostitution? It’s a free-market enterprise. And if C. Fiorina can sell her political ass for campaign contributions, why can’t ordinary men and woman sell their bodies for sex? Minus sexual penetration, what’s the difference between sex prostitution and massage for profit?
And the best for last, RE This: “The majority of Europeans are atheistic-nihilistic materialists.”
NO, the majority of Europeans are ‘non-religious’ not atheistic; in the Netherlands and Iceland, only between 10 to 15% described themselves as atheist. That’s about the same percent as in other Socialist Democracies. And overall, a minority (30% to 40%) consider themselves ‘religious.’ Thank God for small favors! Even in Sweden’s Jewish population, a community of around 20,000 people, only 8,000 of them are religious.
And if you have such a negative view of atheism, why do you subscribe to the Ayn Rand school of Conservative thought?
Ayn Rand was an atheist. She’s at the top of the list of famous world atheists, along with Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. Here, check her out in this interview, and tell me why she’s wrong about the nonexistence of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim Invisible Entity.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=ayn+rand+athiest+interview&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
Your problem with the European Democratic Socialist countries is religious, not governmental. That’s why when you complained I didn’t include the few socialist democracies who were in economic decline, you failed to include the larger list of nations failing nations, some on the brink of collapsing, all with HIGH percentages of religious belief in the 80% to 90% range: Peru, Brazil, Romania, Nigeria, etc – even Greece is in the highly religious list of nation who believes there is a god.
My advise to you (though it’s probably too late in your life to change your mind set) is to try to see the world as it is, not through the distorted lens of conservative-religious filters.
Either that, or as Willie Shakespeare said: “Get thee to a Nunnery”
And don’t twist my Marines example of collectivism out of context. My point is that collectivism, in certain circumstances, is desirable and honorable. Self-sacrifice for the greater good is often described as heroism – like the Americans on the plane who instinctively risked their lives to disarm the gun toting terrorist.
In other words, all things in BALANCE. A glass is half-full or half-empty depending on perspective.
“And if you have such a negative view of atheism, why do you subscribe to the Ayn Rand school of Conservative thought?”
Where did you get this from? I am not an objectivist. I don’t accept Rand’s view of things. her’s a completely selfish POV much like socialists wanting more “free” sutff.
“[T]he fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism.” (Centesimus Annus#13)
http://www.acton.org/public-policy/business-society/economy/humane-economy
The Netherlands is a whole different scale of economy than that of the U.S. it can play materialist games for a while.
You avoid mentioning Christianity and spirituality so, I’m guessing, you must be an materialist-objectivist-atheist. Life is your existential HDI – happiness is material security.
I’m surprised that you haven’t moved to Europe where life is so “peachy-keen” for a socialist like yourself. Or, do you think the U.S. can shake down more money from the rich to offer more “free” stuff to people like you. Isn’t Bernie Sanders your Robin Hood?
“We have Collectivism here in the US. It’s called the U.S. Marine Corps.”
…you mean the VOLUNTEER army?
It is easy to demand socialism when it’s other people’s money that is being offered in exchange for your vote.
BTW: I do not support the idea of Social Security and Medicare and food stamps and centralized health care and…
Anything the gov’t is involved in will cost you more time, more money and more freedom.
Centralized government and materialist humanism are deficit of altruism…like Ayn Rand.
But Jennifer, you don’t understand!!! We haven’t had the right people in charge. All those others weren’t as good as the Bern and his comrades!!
This time it’ll be different!!!
(Sarcasm off)
Socialism is for the people, not the socialists.
Nobody in the 1950s thought there would never be a Catholic president. Nobody in the 20th century thought an actor would never be president. And by about 1980 everybody knew that it was only a matter of time till there was a black president, or a woman president. Most people knew it a lot earlier than that.
There are some barriers that have not yet been broken, and shouldn’t be, but I have no illusion that they won’t be. So far Americans have never knowingly elected an adulterer president. They didn’t even suspect Kennedy, and they believed Clinton’s denials. But they came close with McCain, and with the value of marriage having become so degraded it’s inevitable that it will happen soon. Where will we go next? How long till we elect a known felon?
Always kvetching about the little thing, Milhoisen. OK so make it ‘never in their lifetime.’
There’ never been a Jewish President either. Maybe Bernie gets a two-fer for first time president.
It ain’t gonna happen, and you know it. There will one day be a Jewish president, but she won’t be a socialist. In fact she won’t be a Democrat, because you-know-who, on whose turnout the Democrats utterly depend, will never vote for a Jew.
Sigh, you’re probably right about the last part.
And can you imagine a female Jewish President and the havoc it would create trying to choose the right curtains for the White House Windows -?
I’m just trying to imagine the cost of fitting the White House with mezuzos.
You might be completely correct. But you forgot 2015: “The American union will never disintegrate.”
“I’m a Democratic Socialist.”
Translation: “I’m a Popularly Elected Extortionist”
Well now I finally understand the leftist cultural goal of normalizing every perversion – socialism looks almost moral in relation to the filth they have been polishing.
And that, my friends, is Bernie’s secret. He hasn’t changed; the country changed. Reagan used to say that about the Democrat Party.
But Bernie shouldn’t get his hopes up – if all else fails, he’ll get Trumped.
Yeah them damn Democrats, working behind the scenes to get the networks to allow the nation to see Elvis’s hips thrashing on TV! That was the start of the downward moral spiral in this country!
And liberals helping to legalize Penthouse, showing women with naked breasts! Shame on them! We need to return to the moral purity of ancestral America, where we put people in jail for writing the words ‘dammit’ and ‘scuzbucket’ on mailed postcards.
There’s no such thing as a Democratic Socialist. That’s plain old bull excrement.
By definition, Socialism is contrary to individual freedom and Democracy as we understand it. Socialists see each individual as a slave of the collective.
Bernie Sanders can go straight to h.e.l.l.
Hello? Knock knock? Is your brain out to lunch?
Google ‘Democratic Socialism’ and see how may hits you get for scholarly articles for something that doesn’t exist,. Next look up the number of nations who describe their governments that way. Then read the Wikipedia article about it. And a half dozen or so dictionaries that describe it,
Obama calls himself a Christian, and Bruce Jenner calls himself a woman. Those countries can call themselves a Clingon Alliance if they please. And you can call yourself smart. It ain’t gonna be true just because you say it.
And you can google “Yeti” and get many a “scholarly article” on the topic.
Google “God” and you’ll find plenty of “scholarly articles” telling you it does not exist, and plenty of “scholarly articles” telling you it does.
If Democratic Socialism doesn’t exist, how would you describe those Scandinavian nations mentioned above? If they’re not socialistic, and they’re not capitalistic what do you call them? And remember, they’re our allies and friends, so be nice.
And the Clingons were Pirate Capitalists.
And Bruce Jenner is a guy with male sexual apparatus still attached who wears a lot of makeup and has taken a female first name.
And Obama is a Christain who goes to church with his wife and daughters and if he’s pretending he’s doing a pretty good job of it.
Denmark:
Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy – Capitalist (Market) Economy
Denmark:
Parliamentary Constitutional Republic – Capitalist (Market) Economy
Norway:
Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy – Capitalist (Market) Economy
Sweden:
Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy – Capitalist (Market) Economy
Not a single one of those countries has implemented Socialism. They are all MARKET economies, heavily taxed and regulated. Period.
“Knock knock? Is your brain out to lunch?”…
JJ, do your parents know you’re up this late?
Mommie! Bring me my BOTTLE,
The one that says Makers Mark!
Don’t forget my teddy bear !
Socialism is not contrary to democracy. Democracy is about how governments should be chosen; socialism is about what governments should do once chosen. There are many socialists, and even outright communists, who truly believe in democracy, and don’t think of it a bus that one gets off when it reaches ones destination. If they were to win an election that would not be the last one held, and if they were to lose the next election they would peacefully hand over power, just as it was handed to them, and just as they would expect it to be handed back to them if they should ever win again. That does not make them any less dedicated to socialism or communism; the two things have nothing to do with each other.
I think you don’t really understand the meaning of “Socialism” or “Communism”
Any dictionary will do.
Back at you with the dictionary for Democratic Socialism.
You’re right about unadulterated socialism, it sucks. And it doesn’t work! That’s why the socialist-communistic nations have changed or are changing to incorporate elements of free market capitalism into their systems. Isn’t that what China did, and helped make it the economic and manufacturing powerhouse it is now?
Is there Democracy in China?
You are wrong. I know the meanings of these terms very well, and there is nothing in them that says how governments should be selected. Therefore there is nothing in them that is contrary to democracy. Democracy is very overrated.
Socialists don’t believe that a person is qualified to so much as buy a toaster without guidance, let alone vote for anything of substance.
This was actually a selling point of the CPUSA years ago (and perhaps still is). As a card-carrying member, all you had to do was pay your Party dues and follow orders. The Party had smart people who would do all the thinking for you. Yes, the Communists thought this was a good selling point.
Strangely enough, it wasn’t this oppressive attitude which kept Party membership down. What American Communists hated was the Molotov-Ribbintrop Pact, and Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin. The Party took big hits on both occasions. Official Party doctrine that mere members were too stupid to turn their brains on in the morning didn’t bother them so much.
Democracy is not about choosing wisely. I don’t think anyone believes in Democracy because they think voters truly know what they’re doing. People believe in democracy despite most voters being ignorant and stupid, and there’s no reason a socialist or communist can’t believe in that too.
No, Sanders’ policies and plans will doom Sanders. That they are labeled here or anywhere as socialist is pretty much academic. Call them conservative and I’d still reject them.
Screw the polls. Even the pollsters are telling us not to rely on polls. Sanders’ ceiling is about 35% of the Democrat Party and about 20% of the general voting population.
The bottom line.
Most of the general population have no clue what a socialist is, what they stand for, the history of their
disastrous agenda through out the world.
The general public are into the third or fourth generation of left wing Public School grads.
They don’t think for themselves, group think for the Left or who comes across as a reality TV act.
What a boring argument.
Next, JJ will be explaining how Obama’s scholarly talent got him into Harvard and on to head the law review. Or how Obama’s excessive marijuana use caused him to have two brief moments of literary brilliance, then cause the part of his brain allowing him to write and speak with literacy to collapse. Or will he explain Michelle Obama’s elegance? Or will he explain how the Imperial Japanese had been gardeners for the past 5 years prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima?
Or will his parents shut all this brilliant discussion down by turning off his bedroom light?
I’m no fan of Obama. And I bet I was critiquing him before you were.
So other than Obama, what’s your point, besides the one on your head?
Mommie, where are the batteries for my flashlight?
Hey, we should be actively working to get Bernie nominated.
When you even have the raving lunatic liberals at the Daily Kos mentioning George McGovern in the same article you know they’re worried. They hate Hilz, love Bernie and it’s tearing them up inside.
Indigestion, heartburn, headaches and catastrophes galore to them all.
Maybe we should go long on OTC antacid manufacturer’s stock.
Just today, he openly declared his opposition to Capitalism and called for a “Revolution” (his word) to overthrow our economic system and “let government” fix our problems.
I don’t think the “S” word is his real problem. The plain fact of the matter is that Sanders is a COMMUNIST. Life-long, dyed in the wool, COMMUNIST of the Soviet variety. Ok, to be fair, he’s also been a lifelong supporter of the Cuban variety of COMMUNISM.
And Obama is a Christain who goes to church with his wife and daughters and if he’s pretending he’s doing a pretty good job of it.
Really? Which church does he attend? Which Xian church has he ever attended? All I know about is Jeremiah Wright’s pagan temple, which bears even less of a relationship to Xianity than the Nation of Islam does to actual Islam. In what other ways is he doing a good job of pretending to be Xian? Because you seem to be the only one taken in by it, and you don’t seem to know enough about Xianity to tell whether someone appears to be one.
Milhosen, Ye Of Little Faith:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/10/19/obama-nurtures-his-faith-away-from-the-spotlight/