The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
howie105
Well-Known Member
Palin is just a blip on the screen at the moment with her actual ability to deliver a significant number of voters in question. She has been out of the public/media eye and inactivity in the political arena equals irrelevance. However at worst it gets Trump bumped up in the daily news cycle which never hurts.
Farid
Well-Known Member
So I was flipping through the channels, and on every new station, FOX and MSNBC, all that they were covering was the republicans. I'm starting to believe those who say there is a media blackout on Sanders. Hell, even MSNBC, which had Sanders on as a guest, seemed pro Clinton by the questions they were asking. They asked Sanders what he thought of Sarah Palin, but not about his differences with Hillary Clinton - pure fluff. It's as if they want all of the attention on the Republicans so that viewers don't start to notice the differences between the Democratic candidates.
One exchange in particular got my attention. Maddow asked about the candidates being upset about the debates being held on football game dates, and if the democratic candidates would come together and ask for another debate to be held. The way the question was asked, if Sanders answered yes, it would be implying all of the candidates (Hillary and O'Malley included) were unhappy with the date. Instead Sanders said that HE personally would support another debate, but hesitated to say that others would. My guess is that is because he doesn't think Hillary wants another debate. If what I think is true about the chair of the DNC being pro Hillary, then it would make sense for Hillary to avoid another debate, as it was the DNC who decided to have the debates on those days.
One exchange in particular got my attention. Maddow asked about the candidates being upset about the debates being held on football game dates, and if the democratic candidates would come together and ask for another debate to be held. The way the question was asked, if Sanders answered yes, it would be implying all of the candidates (Hillary and O'Malley included) were unhappy with the date. Instead Sanders said that HE personally would support another debate, but hesitated to say that others would. My guess is that is because he doesn't think Hillary wants another debate. If what I think is true about the chair of the DNC being pro Hillary, then it would make sense for Hillary to avoid another debate, as it was the DNC who decided to have the debates on those days.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Sarah Palin as the VP on the Trump ticket sounds about right. Lines up perfectly with Trump's goal of turning this whole thing into a reality show. Surprised he hasn't announced that Dennis Rodman and Gary Busy will be given cabinet posts.... maybe he's waiting to see if Honey Boo Boo and Momma June are going to decline first.
Farid
Well-Known Member
But even discussing Trump and Palin is giving into this being a reality show. It's free media time. The fact that we are discussing Palin when we should be discussing the debate that just went down between Hillary and Sanders just shows how the media wants this to be a debate of non issues. If you are forced to debate about trash like Trump and Palin you overlook the real debate that should be going on between Sanders and Clinton.
If you are really against Trump and Palin don't give them their moment. Keep this thread for discussing the real issues not the dog and pony act they want you to be distracted by.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@Farid - I agree with your sentiment to an extent but I do disagree that the absurdity of the situation is not a 'real issue'. It points to the existence of a certain demographic here in the US that while entertaining, does need to be taken seriously if just for what it represents. If it's also entertaining that's added value.
As for Sanders and Clinton debate being overlooked....I have watched and discussed every debate. I think I can spare the time for both.
As for Sanders and Clinton debate being overlooked....I have watched and discussed every debate. I think I can spare the time for both.
lwien
Well-Known Member
The media only wants to sell airtime. They're a business. They could care less if the debate is about issues or non-issues. They will air what their demographic demands. I have no doubt that if serious debate issues would garner higher ratings than non-issues, they would air them more often but alas, that is not the case. Most people would rather be entertained than informed.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
An interesting article on how Clinton tried to lay blame on Sanders for something that happened during Bill Clintons time as a lame duck president.
Also an interesting side note, the moderator of the last Dem. debate, Andrea Mitchell, is married to former Fed. Chairman Alan Greenspan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/hillary-blames-bernie-for_b_9018360.html
Also an interesting side note, the moderator of the last Dem. debate, Andrea Mitchell, is married to former Fed. Chairman Alan Greenspan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/hillary-blames-bernie-for_b_9018360.html
One need only look at Clinton's top contributors to understand why Sanders has gotten so little media coverage...
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
What, you have something against Dogs and Ponies? Personally I think Dogs and Ponies deserve more respect...
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
If I'm not mistaken the money from the speaking engagements Sanders called out at the last debate would be a personal wage and not a political contribution........... I almost feel the need to wash my mouth out with soap after saying that.
howie105
Well-Known Member
Farid: But even discussing Trump and Palin is giving into this being a reality show....Reality show reality surrounds us 24/7 and after a bit one learns to give it the credence it deserves regardless of the source.
Farid: It's free media time. The fact that we are discussing Palin when we should be discussing the debate that just went down between Hillary and Sanders just shows how the media wants this to be a debate of non issues....The media is indeed agenda driven but ignoring the opposition won't change that.
Farid: If you are forced to debate about trash like Trump and Palin you overlook the real debate that should be going on between Sanders and Clinton.....If it were the only thing one pays attention to then yes it would be bad but there is enough time to examine both the left and the right.
Farid: If you are really against Trump and Palin don't give them their moment. Keep this thread for discussing the real issues not the dog and pony act they want you to be distracted by.....Ignoring a situation doesn’t make it go away but it removes an opportunity to maybe learn something about your fellow citizens and their views.
Farid: It's free media time. The fact that we are discussing Palin when we should be discussing the debate that just went down between Hillary and Sanders just shows how the media wants this to be a debate of non issues....The media is indeed agenda driven but ignoring the opposition won't change that.
Farid: If you are forced to debate about trash like Trump and Palin you overlook the real debate that should be going on between Sanders and Clinton.....If it were the only thing one pays attention to then yes it would be bad but there is enough time to examine both the left and the right.
Farid: If you are really against Trump and Palin don't give them their moment. Keep this thread for discussing the real issues not the dog and pony act they want you to be distracted by.....Ignoring a situation doesn’t make it go away but it removes an opportunity to maybe learn something about your fellow citizens and their views.
grokit
well-worn member
While I can see @Farid's point, I also like dogs and ponies. Entertainment value aside, it's hard to ignore the elephant hiding in plain sight: that our government is now for sale to the highest bidder, thanks to the one unelected branch of the government that recently ruled it to be so. In this circumstance the only hope the people have is to elect a 'socialist' statesman, making the people the highest bidder! This would be the ultimate perversion of the citizen's united ruling, and the possibility of it happening excites me 
Gunky
Well-Known Member
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/case-against-bernie-sanders.html
Some discussion of practicalities of Sanders' platform. Sanders is great. Hillary is better. More than better - damn good.
Some discussion of practicalities of Sanders' platform. Sanders is great. Hillary is better. More than better - damn good.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
While I can appreciate why you think that is a good thing, I personally think Citizens United was a TERRIBLE decision and one of the most anti-citizen decisions of the court in my lifetime, I wouldn't get too excited. I was excited about the prospect of GWB losing in 2004, and it took me a while to get over it...This would be the ultimate perversion of the citizen's united ruling, and the possibility of it happening excites me
CU only goes away with a Democratic Congress writing law overturning it. Until then corporations and rich people will continue to have an inappropriately out sized footprint on elections. Electing Bernie won't do dick in this regard... Sorry.
Electing a Democratic House and Senate, THAT is completely different. That IS how CU gets overturned.
grokit
well-worn member
I totally agree, hence the enthusiasm for its ultimate perversion. If we can't defeat it (at this point), it would certainly be awesome to take these pigs down, with their own bs mechanization of the constitution
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
http://progresspond.com/stillcalling/2016/01/20/feel-the-bern/#.Vp-bUjZeD-Z
Feel the Bern
Memes like this are beginning to show up all over my Facebook feed and they are really beginning to annoy the ever-loving shit out of me:
It seems that a substantial percentage of my friends -all of who I thought would know better, seeing as they’re middle-aged, fairly well-educated, politically-aware adults like myself- either believe in magic, have no idea how our political system works, or simply have no memory past last weekend. So let me be forthright: this will never happen, not even if Bernie Sanders is elected in a landslide.
But let me back up a moment. Most of the people I know, both online and in real life, know I am no fan of the Clintons. I have not liked either of those rat bastards since NAFTA, DOMA, and the PRWORA. That said, I don’t “like” politicians, at least not in the personal sense. I view them as tools to accomplish certain political goals, kind of like I view the various members of a football team. I don’t have to personally like any of the Philadelphia Eagles personally, as long as they crush Dallas. I don’t need to like Barack Obama so long as he’s fighting to advance goals I hold dear.
At this point in the country’s history, one of the two parties -the Republican Party- that control the country has gone completely fucking insane. They control both houses of Congress, and their nominees have a bare majority on the Supreme Court. Thanks to a combination of Democratic dumbassery and Republican gerrymandering, they control many statehouses as well. If we as a nation are to avoid becoming a far-right dystopia that even my conservative friends would recoil from, we must, at the very least, hold the Executive Branch. Ideally, we run a candidate who will have coattails and take back either the House or the Senate.
I am not going to address Booman’s rumination on whether Sanders would lose all 50 states, although I will recommend that you read it because it is salient, important, and accurate. Nor will I address Dick Polman’s argument that Sanders self-identification as a socialist renders him unelectable, although that is also a piece well worth your time. What I will address is the magical thinking and sheer ignorance of recent history that renders memes like that above foolish and dangerous: the fact of the matter is that it is not as simple as “We fund this shit by taking back the money that the 1% has been stealing from us for the past 50+ years.” This is as silly as anything that Nader’s supporters claimed back in 2000, and their silliness (aided by Al Gore’s incompetent campaign) helped “elect” George W. Bush, and we all know what happened after THAT.
Fun fact: a president is not a magician. Bernie Sanders, if elected, will have to deal with the same cast of Democratic and Republican douchebags that Obama dealt with. Anyone watching the progress of the Affordable Care Act should know that. Has everyone forgotten that some of the worst compromises on health care reform were made at the insistence of Democrats, or were you just not paying attention? Read up on Max Baucus, Bart Stupak, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Read up on the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by Tom Carper. Read up on how a cabal of Democrats worked together to water down student loan debt reform. Barack Obama, let’s recall, was elected in a LANDSLIDE, and still had to work with these backbiters and thieves. With the Senate and the House firmly in the hands of the GOP -we may take back the Senate, but the House is probably out of reach- what makes you think that a Sanders victory would be any different? Even if it was another landslide?
I am so tired of the wishful thinking I keep seeing from people who should know better. I don’t care for Clinton at all, but if anyone is capable of making Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan eat a bag of dicks, it’s Hilary, who has already been through the GOP wringer. You’re electing a president, not a best friend. I’m not saying “don’t support or vote for sanders” but it is simply not a case of “elect Sanders and he’ll get the money back from the 1%”. That is a fucking PIPE DREAM. His own party will fight him tooth and nail. Be realistic.
And I wouldn’t be bringing any of this up, but for the fact that so many of these same people are saying if Sanders isn’t the nominee they won’t support Clinton. To them I say: You. Are. Fools. Clinton will not be a perfect president. Neither will Sanders. But both of these individuals will be a damn sight better than Trump, Cruz, Kasich, or any of the Republican candidates, who (with the likely exception of Trump) will be a rubber-stamp for whatever dog shit proposals the lunatics in the House and Senate will send to the White House.
This isn’t a very nice way of putting it, but grow the fuck up and get serious. You’re not electing a best friend. You’re not getting married til-death-to-us-part. You are electing someone who will advance your goals to one extent or another. Is Hillary sheisty in many ways? Sure. So is Obama, who you’ll recall fucked us on domestic surveillance, trade, and immigration. Or were you to busy making #feelthebern hashtags to notice?
What matters is whether the person in the White House is on our side. Both Clinton and Sanders are serious, thoughtful, and imperfect candidates. I admire your enthusiasm. Really, I do. But stop living in the Neighborhood of Make Believe, and for God’s sake stop encouraging people to believe in equally stupid Neighborhood of Make Believe pipe dreams that have absolutely no basis in reality or recent history.
Because if the result is President Cruz or Trump, I am blaming YOU.
Feel the Bern
Memes like this are beginning to show up all over my Facebook feed and they are really beginning to annoy the ever-loving shit out of me:
It seems that a substantial percentage of my friends -all of who I thought would know better, seeing as they’re middle-aged, fairly well-educated, politically-aware adults like myself- either believe in magic, have no idea how our political system works, or simply have no memory past last weekend. So let me be forthright: this will never happen, not even if Bernie Sanders is elected in a landslide.
But let me back up a moment. Most of the people I know, both online and in real life, know I am no fan of the Clintons. I have not liked either of those rat bastards since NAFTA, DOMA, and the PRWORA. That said, I don’t “like” politicians, at least not in the personal sense. I view them as tools to accomplish certain political goals, kind of like I view the various members of a football team. I don’t have to personally like any of the Philadelphia Eagles personally, as long as they crush Dallas. I don’t need to like Barack Obama so long as he’s fighting to advance goals I hold dear.
At this point in the country’s history, one of the two parties -the Republican Party- that control the country has gone completely fucking insane. They control both houses of Congress, and their nominees have a bare majority on the Supreme Court. Thanks to a combination of Democratic dumbassery and Republican gerrymandering, they control many statehouses as well. If we as a nation are to avoid becoming a far-right dystopia that even my conservative friends would recoil from, we must, at the very least, hold the Executive Branch. Ideally, we run a candidate who will have coattails and take back either the House or the Senate.
I am not going to address Booman’s rumination on whether Sanders would lose all 50 states, although I will recommend that you read it because it is salient, important, and accurate. Nor will I address Dick Polman’s argument that Sanders self-identification as a socialist renders him unelectable, although that is also a piece well worth your time. What I will address is the magical thinking and sheer ignorance of recent history that renders memes like that above foolish and dangerous: the fact of the matter is that it is not as simple as “We fund this shit by taking back the money that the 1% has been stealing from us for the past 50+ years.” This is as silly as anything that Nader’s supporters claimed back in 2000, and their silliness (aided by Al Gore’s incompetent campaign) helped “elect” George W. Bush, and we all know what happened after THAT.
Fun fact: a president is not a magician. Bernie Sanders, if elected, will have to deal with the same cast of Democratic and Republican douchebags that Obama dealt with. Anyone watching the progress of the Affordable Care Act should know that. Has everyone forgotten that some of the worst compromises on health care reform were made at the insistence of Democrats, or were you just not paying attention? Read up on Max Baucus, Bart Stupak, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Read up on the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by Tom Carper. Read up on how a cabal of Democrats worked together to water down student loan debt reform. Barack Obama, let’s recall, was elected in a LANDSLIDE, and still had to work with these backbiters and thieves. With the Senate and the House firmly in the hands of the GOP -we may take back the Senate, but the House is probably out of reach- what makes you think that a Sanders victory would be any different? Even if it was another landslide?
I am so tired of the wishful thinking I keep seeing from people who should know better. I don’t care for Clinton at all, but if anyone is capable of making Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan eat a bag of dicks, it’s Hilary, who has already been through the GOP wringer. You’re electing a president, not a best friend. I’m not saying “don’t support or vote for sanders” but it is simply not a case of “elect Sanders and he’ll get the money back from the 1%”. That is a fucking PIPE DREAM. His own party will fight him tooth and nail. Be realistic.
And I wouldn’t be bringing any of this up, but for the fact that so many of these same people are saying if Sanders isn’t the nominee they won’t support Clinton. To them I say: You. Are. Fools. Clinton will not be a perfect president. Neither will Sanders. But both of these individuals will be a damn sight better than Trump, Cruz, Kasich, or any of the Republican candidates, who (with the likely exception of Trump) will be a rubber-stamp for whatever dog shit proposals the lunatics in the House and Senate will send to the White House.
This isn’t a very nice way of putting it, but grow the fuck up and get serious. You’re not electing a best friend. You’re not getting married til-death-to-us-part. You are electing someone who will advance your goals to one extent or another. Is Hillary sheisty in many ways? Sure. So is Obama, who you’ll recall fucked us on domestic surveillance, trade, and immigration. Or were you to busy making #feelthebern hashtags to notice?
What matters is whether the person in the White House is on our side. Both Clinton and Sanders are serious, thoughtful, and imperfect candidates. I admire your enthusiasm. Really, I do. But stop living in the Neighborhood of Make Believe, and for God’s sake stop encouraging people to believe in equally stupid Neighborhood of Make Believe pipe dreams that have absolutely no basis in reality or recent history.
Because if the result is President Cruz or Trump, I am blaming YOU.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
I agree with this as well, that some of these memes aren't realistic.
This article is a very good portrait of who he actually is:
Bernie Sanders is no socialist: Socialism is his brand, but he’s a Democrat in every way but name
I wrote Bernie's biography so I know: On capitalism, on Israel, on foreign policy, on Nader, he's quite traditional
Bernie Sanders is a stubborn man, a fact I kept coming across as I reported and wrote “Why Bernie Sanders Matters,” the unauthorized biography of the Democratic presidential candidate. That trait might explain why he continues to describe himself as a “Democratic Socialist,” even though any mention of the “S-word” turns off many American voters. A recent Gallup poll found that less than half of Americans would vote for a candidate who is a socialist. “Socialist” in an epithet, hurled by conservatives at President Barack Obama to discredit his health care reform efforts.
To be sure, Sanders has been gradually moving away from socialism. As a radical student activist in the 1960s, he identified with the Socialist Workers Party. When he first ran for statewide office in Vermont during the 1970s, he described himself as a socialist. In office, he all but glorified the term. Walk into his Senate office and you will see a plaque on the wall honoring Eugene V. Debs, who ran for president five times as leader of the Socialist Party of America.
But Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. No way, no how. He’s not even a democratic socialist, as it is practiced in the Scandinavian nations. Fact is the socialists don’t want Sanders. Here’s why:
No Means: Socialism distinguishes itself from capitalism, fascism and other political/economic systems by this fundamental requirement: the state or the community shall own the means of production. That means public ownership and control of corporations, especially major ones like power companies and auto makers. In November Bernie Sanders delivered a speech at Georgetown University to define his brand of socialism. “I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production,” he said. So Sanders, by definition, is not a socialist.
Money Talks: Sanders believes in the capitalist system. He might advocate reform of capitalism’s current excesses, but he is a capitalist. As a congressman, Sanders successfully stopped the government from bestowing multi-million-dollar bonuses on executives at Lockheed. But he never attacked the company’s basic capitalist premise. Likewise, when peace protestors tried to block the entrance to a GE plant in Burlington when he was mayor, he had them arrested. Socialist Party of USA co-chair Mimi Soltysik sees the world differently: “We don’t see capitalism as a reformable institution.” Sanders does.
Bernie the Bomber: Socialists embrace pacifism. War is a last resort. Sanders’s model, Eugene Debs, was jailed for his opposition to World War I. But Sanders has cast vote after vote for sending troops to war and bombing one side or another. When he supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, Vermonters occupied his office and a staffer quit. He’s voted for sending troops to Afghanistan. He enthusiastically supported Obama’s most recent budget, with a five percent increase in military spending.
Tepid Dane: When pressed about his brand of socialism, Sanders often will refer to the Scandinavian nations that practice “democratic socialism.” Northern European countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden have governments that tax heavily and provide excellent free public education and health care, for example. Asked by the Wall Street Journal for his definition, he said: “For me, what democratic socialism is about is to maintain the strong entrepreneurial spirit that we have in this country to continue to produce wealth, but to make certain that the wealth is much more equitably distributed than is currently the case.” So, kinder and gentler capitalism.
Democrat Down Deep: Sanders is a Democrat in every way but the name. Running in Vermont, Sanders had to distinguish himself from Democrats to establish his own brand. But once he got to Congress in 1990, he voted with the Dems, nearly 100 percent of the time. The Democratic establishment funded his 2006 senate campaign, including $10,000 from HillPAC, Hillary Clinton’s funding arm. He caucused with the Democrats in the Senate. And by the way, he’s running as a Democrat.
Nader Not: For many left-leaning Americans, Ralph Nader remains the most progressive leader in America. He and his “Nader’s Raiders” have advocated for the public against corporate America for decades. But Sanders and Nader don’t mix. He refuses to take Nader’s calls. Nader has branded Sanders “The Lone Ranger.” Sanders refused to support Nader’s 2004 presidential campaign. “Not only am I going to vote for John Kerry,” Sanders said, “I am going to run around this country and do everything I can to dissuade people from voting for Ralph Nader.”
GOP Mayor: In his first term as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders morphed into a fiscal conservative, after running as a social progressive. He balanced the city’s books, cut taxes and built up reserves. “We‘re going to out Republican the Republicans,” he was quoted as saying. When he ran for office, Sanders undercut the incumbent Democrat by accusing him of playing up to developers who wanted to build condominiums on the Lake Champlain shoreline, rather than public parks. As mayor, Sanders supported the same developer; progressives mounted a referendum to defeat Sanders’s deal with the developer. “We must ask how the Sanders administration’s economic development policies differ from a traditional capitalist approach,” Steven Soifer wrote in The Socialist Mayor.
Zionist Leanings: When it comes to Israel, virtually all leftists, progressives and socialists of any stripe side with the Palestinians. In Europe and U.S. college campuses, Israel represents a warmongering oppressor. Note the current BDS movement to boycott Israel and divest investments in the country – driven by leftists. But Senator Sanders has often defended the Israelis and voted on their side. He has voted for billions in foreign and military aid to Israel. Sanders enraged progressives when he supported the Israeli invasion of Gaza in 2014. At a town meeting in Cabot, Vermont, he was forced to shout down protesters.
Red Scare: Socialism and communism became scary prospects immediately after World War II when the U.S. confronted the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Sanders drew his own line: “When I talk about democratic socialism,” he said in 1990, “what I am not talking about is authoritarian communism – a system which, thank God, is now falling apart; a system which has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people; a system which has been a vicious dictatorship; a system which has run an extraordinary dictatorship in the Soviet Union.”
Populism Rules: Add up Bernie Sanders’s sayings and stands over the years, especially after 1980, and they will lead you to a clear conclusion: Sanders is much more like Huey Long, the populist governor of Louisiana, rather than his socialist icon Eugene Debs.
All of which begs the question: why does Bernie Sanders cling to the Socialist brand — democratic or otherwise?
In part, Sanders cannot bear to be associated completely with the Democratic Party. He’s been running against Democrats his whole life. His brand requires him to be the insurgent, the lonely crusader, the radical alternative. Perhaps he truly believes in a more socialist system where the government steps in more stridently to redistribute wealth, ensure quality education for all and provide free health insurance. And maybe Bernie Sanders cannot change his basic philosophy just because it will improve his chances of prevailing. Perhaps it’s true that he’s the one political candidate who will not do the expedient thing, like dropping socialism from his brand.
And maybe that’s why voters will look beyond socialism and buy Bernie Sanders, regardless of how he’s defined, by himself or others.
This article is a very good portrait of who he actually is:
Bernie Sanders is no socialist: Socialism is his brand, but he’s a Democrat in every way but name
I wrote Bernie's biography so I know: On capitalism, on Israel, on foreign policy, on Nader, he's quite traditional
Bernie Sanders is a stubborn man, a fact I kept coming across as I reported and wrote “Why Bernie Sanders Matters,” the unauthorized biography of the Democratic presidential candidate. That trait might explain why he continues to describe himself as a “Democratic Socialist,” even though any mention of the “S-word” turns off many American voters. A recent Gallup poll found that less than half of Americans would vote for a candidate who is a socialist. “Socialist” in an epithet, hurled by conservatives at President Barack Obama to discredit his health care reform efforts.
To be sure, Sanders has been gradually moving away from socialism. As a radical student activist in the 1960s, he identified with the Socialist Workers Party. When he first ran for statewide office in Vermont during the 1970s, he described himself as a socialist. In office, he all but glorified the term. Walk into his Senate office and you will see a plaque on the wall honoring Eugene V. Debs, who ran for president five times as leader of the Socialist Party of America.
But Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. No way, no how. He’s not even a democratic socialist, as it is practiced in the Scandinavian nations. Fact is the socialists don’t want Sanders. Here’s why:
No Means: Socialism distinguishes itself from capitalism, fascism and other political/economic systems by this fundamental requirement: the state or the community shall own the means of production. That means public ownership and control of corporations, especially major ones like power companies and auto makers. In November Bernie Sanders delivered a speech at Georgetown University to define his brand of socialism. “I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production,” he said. So Sanders, by definition, is not a socialist.
Money Talks: Sanders believes in the capitalist system. He might advocate reform of capitalism’s current excesses, but he is a capitalist. As a congressman, Sanders successfully stopped the government from bestowing multi-million-dollar bonuses on executives at Lockheed. But he never attacked the company’s basic capitalist premise. Likewise, when peace protestors tried to block the entrance to a GE plant in Burlington when he was mayor, he had them arrested. Socialist Party of USA co-chair Mimi Soltysik sees the world differently: “We don’t see capitalism as a reformable institution.” Sanders does.
Bernie the Bomber: Socialists embrace pacifism. War is a last resort. Sanders’s model, Eugene Debs, was jailed for his opposition to World War I. But Sanders has cast vote after vote for sending troops to war and bombing one side or another. When he supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, Vermonters occupied his office and a staffer quit. He’s voted for sending troops to Afghanistan. He enthusiastically supported Obama’s most recent budget, with a five percent increase in military spending.
Tepid Dane: When pressed about his brand of socialism, Sanders often will refer to the Scandinavian nations that practice “democratic socialism.” Northern European countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden have governments that tax heavily and provide excellent free public education and health care, for example. Asked by the Wall Street Journal for his definition, he said: “For me, what democratic socialism is about is to maintain the strong entrepreneurial spirit that we have in this country to continue to produce wealth, but to make certain that the wealth is much more equitably distributed than is currently the case.” So, kinder and gentler capitalism.
Democrat Down Deep: Sanders is a Democrat in every way but the name. Running in Vermont, Sanders had to distinguish himself from Democrats to establish his own brand. But once he got to Congress in 1990, he voted with the Dems, nearly 100 percent of the time. The Democratic establishment funded his 2006 senate campaign, including $10,000 from HillPAC, Hillary Clinton’s funding arm. He caucused with the Democrats in the Senate. And by the way, he’s running as a Democrat.
Nader Not: For many left-leaning Americans, Ralph Nader remains the most progressive leader in America. He and his “Nader’s Raiders” have advocated for the public against corporate America for decades. But Sanders and Nader don’t mix. He refuses to take Nader’s calls. Nader has branded Sanders “The Lone Ranger.” Sanders refused to support Nader’s 2004 presidential campaign. “Not only am I going to vote for John Kerry,” Sanders said, “I am going to run around this country and do everything I can to dissuade people from voting for Ralph Nader.”
GOP Mayor: In his first term as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders morphed into a fiscal conservative, after running as a social progressive. He balanced the city’s books, cut taxes and built up reserves. “We‘re going to out Republican the Republicans,” he was quoted as saying. When he ran for office, Sanders undercut the incumbent Democrat by accusing him of playing up to developers who wanted to build condominiums on the Lake Champlain shoreline, rather than public parks. As mayor, Sanders supported the same developer; progressives mounted a referendum to defeat Sanders’s deal with the developer. “We must ask how the Sanders administration’s economic development policies differ from a traditional capitalist approach,” Steven Soifer wrote in The Socialist Mayor.
Zionist Leanings: When it comes to Israel, virtually all leftists, progressives and socialists of any stripe side with the Palestinians. In Europe and U.S. college campuses, Israel represents a warmongering oppressor. Note the current BDS movement to boycott Israel and divest investments in the country – driven by leftists. But Senator Sanders has often defended the Israelis and voted on their side. He has voted for billions in foreign and military aid to Israel. Sanders enraged progressives when he supported the Israeli invasion of Gaza in 2014. At a town meeting in Cabot, Vermont, he was forced to shout down protesters.
Red Scare: Socialism and communism became scary prospects immediately after World War II when the U.S. confronted the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Sanders drew his own line: “When I talk about democratic socialism,” he said in 1990, “what I am not talking about is authoritarian communism – a system which, thank God, is now falling apart; a system which has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people; a system which has been a vicious dictatorship; a system which has run an extraordinary dictatorship in the Soviet Union.”
Populism Rules: Add up Bernie Sanders’s sayings and stands over the years, especially after 1980, and they will lead you to a clear conclusion: Sanders is much more like Huey Long, the populist governor of Louisiana, rather than his socialist icon Eugene Debs.
All of which begs the question: why does Bernie Sanders cling to the Socialist brand — democratic or otherwise?
In part, Sanders cannot bear to be associated completely with the Democratic Party. He’s been running against Democrats his whole life. His brand requires him to be the insurgent, the lonely crusader, the radical alternative. Perhaps he truly believes in a more socialist system where the government steps in more stridently to redistribute wealth, ensure quality education for all and provide free health insurance. And maybe Bernie Sanders cannot change his basic philosophy just because it will improve his chances of prevailing. Perhaps it’s true that he’s the one political candidate who will not do the expedient thing, like dropping socialism from his brand.
And maybe that’s why voters will look beyond socialism and buy Bernie Sanders, regardless of how he’s defined, by himself or others.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
The Case Against Bernie Sanders
By Jonathan Chait Follow @jonathanchait
Bernie Sanders. Photo: Mary Schwalm/Reuters/Corbis
Until very recently, nobody had any cause to regret Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. Sanders is earnest and widely liked. He has tugged the terms of the political debate leftward in a way both moderates and left-wingers could appreciate. (Moderate liberals might not agree with Sanders’s ideas, but they can appreciate that his presence changes for the better a political landscape in which support for things like Mitt Romney’s old positions on health care and the environment were defined as hard-core liberalism.) Sanders’s rapid rise, in both early states and national polling, has made him a plausible threat to defeat Hillary Clinton. Suddenly, liberals who have used the nominating process to unilaterally vet Clinton, processing every development through its likely impact on her as the inevitable candidate, need to think anew. Do we support Sanders not just in his role as lovable Uncle Bernie, complaining about inequality, but as the actual Democratic nominee for president? My answer to that question is no.
The Case Against Bernie Sanders
By Jonathan Chait Follow @jonathanchait
Bernie Sanders. Photo: Mary Schwalm/Reuters/Corbis
Until very recently, nobody had any cause to regret Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. Sanders is earnest and widely liked. He has tugged the terms of the political debate leftward in a way both moderates and left-wingers could appreciate. (Moderate liberals might not agree with Sanders’s ideas, but they can appreciate that his presence changes for the better a political landscape in which support for things like Mitt Romney’s old positions on health care and the environment were defined as hard-core liberalism.) Sanders’s rapid rise, in both early states and national polling, has made him a plausible threat to defeat Hillary Clinton. Suddenly, liberals who have used the nominating process to unilaterally vet Clinton, processing every development through its likely impact on her as the inevitable candidate, need to think anew. Do we support Sanders not just in his role as lovable Uncle Bernie, complaining about inequality, but as the actual Democratic nominee for president? My answer to that question is no.
The Case Against Bernie Sanders
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
That would still be infinitely better than letting any of the republicans who are running in the White House. And most especially Donald Trump.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Here are your other choices:
Trump = crypto-fascist, bigoted, xenophobic hot mess
Cruz = nasty, wacko extremist and crypto-fascist jr.
Carson = idiot savant
Kasich = sincere, not too bright.
Rubio = shifty, dishonest, nasty; memorized licks only
Christie = nasty
Bush = tongue-tied, unappealing, warmed-over Dubya
Fiorina = utterly incapable of telling the truth, nasty horror of a bad boss
Trump = crypto-fascist, bigoted, xenophobic hot mess
Cruz = nasty, wacko extremist and crypto-fascist jr.
Carson = idiot savant
Kasich = sincere, not too bright.
Rubio = shifty, dishonest, nasty; memorized licks only
Christie = nasty
Bush = tongue-tied, unappealing, warmed-over Dubya
Fiorina = utterly incapable of telling the truth, nasty horror of a bad boss
Last edited:
Farid
Well-Known Member
I'd rather have nothing get accomplished under a hands-tied Sanders than watch Syria Iraq or Iran get attacked under Clinton.
Imagine a hands tied Liberal had beaten Bush. Sure nothing might have gotten done for healthcare and the middle class, but at least we wouldn't be in Iraq, and that would make all the difference.
Imagine a hands tied Liberal had beaten Bush. Sure nothing might have gotten done for healthcare and the middle class, but at least we wouldn't be in Iraq, and that would make all the difference.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I often think the same thing. What if Gore would have won the election instead of George Bush. What a different world we may be living in now. I personally didn't like him but I voted for him. What if the hanging chads in Florida would not have been a problem. Considering their Secretary of State was a Republican. I don't think everything was above board with all that. Fuck You Florida. Oops wrong thread.
There's a lot of what ifs when I think of George W. Bush. Not to mention his Vice Pres Dick Cheney. What a clusterfuck they created. I see Jeb's brother isn't campaigning for him. What a surprise.
There's a lot of what ifs when I think of George W. Bush. Not to mention his Vice Pres Dick Cheney. What a clusterfuck they created. I see Jeb's brother isn't campaigning for him. What a surprise.
Last edited: