Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[Albwan]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

There’s reason to be concerned about Bernie if you’re not in his voting block (dems and reps and independents alike) — so no one should take his campaign lightly... 

 

... That said, I still don’t see a path for him to win. The groups he needs to tap into to have a chance against an incumbent have moved away from him since 2016. 
 

Personally I want Bernie v Trump so we, as a country, can have it out over socialism v democracy. It won’t settle that question forever, but it could tap it down for a few decades. 
 

I see Trump getting anywhere from 38-40 states if it’s Bernie running against him, plus a complete bloodletting in the House for the dems. That’s optimistic (perhaps too much so) but Bernie has a lot of warts that will be exposed in the months ahead.  

 

I hope you're right, I do. I live dead smack in the center of a state i would consider already mostly corrupt and 

socialist, so I have a hard time being as optimistic.

[IDBillzFan]

38 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I see Trump getting anywhere from 38-40 states if it’s Bernie running against him, plus a complete bloodletting in the House for the dems. That’s optimistic (perhaps too much so) but Bernie has a lot of warts that will be exposed in the months ahead.  

 

I suspect the left realizes this, too, because today is apparently "beat the snotschitt out of Bernie Sanders day" on social media. 

 

The ma$sturbation article. The Castro love. His explanation to Anderson Cooper that while he has no effin' clue how much his programs are going to cost, he knows how he's going to pay for it. Throw in a little Bloomberg announcing he's going to spend a billion in lost sofa change to attack Bernie going into Super Tuesday.

 

Bernie needs to go independent. Maybe he can join the Green Party. Surely those batschitt nutbags will take Bernie over an ecosocialist who hysterically promises peace through green jobs.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by IDBillzFan

[IDBillzFan]

 

 

3 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Until the Cubans find out Bernie was a big fan of Castro.

 

Did Bernie's interview lose Florida for the Dems?

 

Quote

 

Sanders added, “When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”

 

There are a lot of “dissidents imprisoned in Cuba,” Cooper noted.

 

Sanders responded, “That's right. And we condemn that. Unlike Donald Trump, let's be clear, you want to — I do not think that Kim Jong Un is a good friend. I don't trade love letters with a murdering dictator. Vladimir Putin, not a great friend of mine.”

 

A couple of things.

 

First, “came into office” is just a remarkable euphemism. Castro did not “come into office” so much as he slaughtered his way to power, which he then held on to with a murderous, tyrannical grip until his death in 2016. Castro was an indisputably evil man, whose long, oppressive reign was bloody and terrible from the very start, which makes Sanders either ignorant or himself evil for defending it.

 

Second, it is hard to imagine that a U.S. senator who is this close to winning his party’s nomination, who has also been in the U.S. Congress for 30 years, would be so stupid as to defend a dictator who is so universally and uniquely despised in the crucial swing state of Florida. Let me remind you that in July 2019, back when Bill de Blasio was still running in the 2020 Democratic primary, the New York City mayor caught all hell from members of his own party after he chanted a phrase popularized by Castro’s right-hand man, Che Guevara, at a labor protest in Miami.

 

“Quoting a murderer responsible for death & oppression in communist Cuba and throughout Latin America is not acceptable. Please apologize,” said Democratic state Sen. Jose Javier Rodriguez on Twitter.

 

 

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Albwan said:

I dunno Bernie might be the perfect storm, lazy freeloaders, dimwits and Trump haters.

Better start stockpiling tp, just in case.

 

I actually think that if the Ds were to all rally around Bernie he would have a decent shot.

 

The whole Bernie is like Stalin and Castro is way overblown and most people with a brain realize that.

 

He's running for president, not dictator.  As George W Bush himself told us, "a dictatorship would be a lot easier."

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Democratic Presidential Clown Car Update for February 24, 2020. 

 

“Bernie’s the frontrunner,

Bloomberg battered over fat broads and horse-faced lesbians,

more slams against #NeverTrump,

plus a gratuitous Slashdot joke. “.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

There’s reason to be concerned about Bernie if you’re not in his voting block (dems and reps and independents alike) — so no one should take his campaign lightly... 

 

... That said, I still don’t see a path for him to win. The groups he needs to tap into to have a chance against an incumbent have moved away from him since 2016. 
 

Personally I want Bernie v Trump so we, as a country, can have it out over socialism v democracy. It won’t settle that question forever, but it could tap it down for a few decades. 
 

I see Trump getting anywhere from 38-40 states if it’s Bernie running against him, plus a complete bloodletting in the House for the dems. That’s optimistic (perhaps too much so) but Bernie has a lot of warts that will be exposed in the months ahead.  

 

 

 

...STILL astonishes me how this clown has the traction he does....the "Gimme Crowd" took the bait............

[4merper4mer]

11 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I actually think that if the Ds were to all rally around Bernie he would have a decent shot.

 

The whole Bernie is like Stalin and Castro is way overblown and most people with a brain realize that.

 

He's running for president, not dictator.  As George W Bush himself told us, "a dictatorship would be a lot easier."

Wow.

 

If Bernie succeeded with enough of his stupid plans, it would inevitably lead to dictatorship just like it has everywhere else it's been tried.  He might not personally have a lot of people slaughtered, but eventually it would happen.  Bernie might not be like Stalin or Castro but the system he wants is like the system they wanted.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

19 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Wow.

 

If Bernie succeeded with enough of his stupid plans, it would inevitably lead to dictatorship just like it has everywhere else it's been tried.  He might not personally have a lot of people slaughtered, but eventually it would happen.  Bernie might not be like Stalin or Castro but the system he wants is like the system they wanted.

 

 

...not to worry!!....his all Vermont ticket with VP Howard Dean should be a winner............

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

Wow.

 

If Bernie succeeded with enough of his stupid plans, it would inevitably lead to dictatorship just like it has everywhere else it's been tried.  He might not personally have a lot of people slaughtered, but eventually it would happen.  Bernie might not be like Stalin or Castro but the system he wants is like the system they wanted.

 

Only congress could pass "Medicare for All".  Good luck with that one.  Same for free college and forgiven student loans.  Lending institutions that bought enough congress people to get it passed that student loans can't be forgiven by bankruptcy won't sit on their hands while this happens.

 

As to the bolded, it usually happens the other way around.  The socialist/communist dictator run regimes I know of, they overtook the country by revolution and instituted communism/socialism like Castro and the European  communist countries (East Germany, Poland, Romania, etc.) when they were taken over by force

[LSHMEAB]

Say what you will about his policies, but socialism is an economic system independent from authoritarianism(as it is perceived).

 

Pretty sure Denmark doesn't have authoritarian rule.

 

Food stamps are socialist. Medicaid is socialist. He would like to implement MORE social safety nets while those on the right want less. So we're debating degrees of socialism.

 

I was thinking about food stamps and Medicaid today and the unintended consequences of pulling the plug on these programs. Crime would almost certainly increase and the workforce would be flooded with unskilled workers who currently get by with these scraps. Would that have a positive outcome? Essentially, corporations would gain leverage and those wage increases we've seen( largely aided by minimum wage laws) would stagnate. Additionally, the unemployment rate would skyrocket as the current number does not reflect those not "looking for a job." 

 

I glean these freebies cause a great deal of distress for some, but I'm not so sure they don't help the economy.

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Pretty sure Denmark doesn't have authoritarian rule.

 

Denmark is not a socialist country though. They're a free market capitalist economy with extensive social welfare programs.

 

[LSHMEAB]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Denmark is not a socialist country though. They're a free market capitalist economy with extensive social welfare programs.

 

Right. But most people have no idea what "socialism" actually entails. It has far more to do with the means of production than it does healthcare(although govt. control of healthcare COULD be considered "means of production") or minimum wage.

 

I'm pretty sure Sanders proposals do not rise to the level of true socialism, although it's nebulous. Communism involves total state control, as I'm sure you know. Socialism is tricky in that it's somewhere in between.

 

Point being, most of the proposals being put forth have been enacted in countries like Denmark for many years and Denmark has not become a dictatorship.

[3rdnlng]

25 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Say what you will about his policies, but socialism is an economic system independent from authoritarianism(as it is perceived).

 

Pretty sure Denmark doesn't have authoritarian rule.

 

Food stamps are socialist. Medicaid is socialist. He would like to implement MORE social safety nets while those on the right want less. So we're debating degrees of socialism.

 

I was thinking about food stamps and Medicaid today and the unintended consequences of pulling the plug on these programs. Crime would almost certainly increase and the workforce would be flooded with unskilled workers who currently get by with these scraps. Would that have a positive outcome? Essentially, corporations would gain leverage and those wage increases we've seen( largely aided by minimum wage laws) would stagnate. Additionally, the unemployment rate would skyrocket as the current number does not reflect those not "looking for a job." 

 

I glean these freebies cause a great deal of distress for some, but I'm not so sure they don't help the economy.

Trump is taking away food stamps from people by pushing policies that raise the economic fortunes of those on food stamps to the level that makes them no longer qualified for food stamps. 

 

Wage increases are not fueled by the raising of minimum wage. As an example Walmart (in NYS) is presently offering $13.75 an hour for raw rookies to come to work for them. By the end of this year that will be $15.00 an hour. NYS minimum wage is $11.80 per hour in most areas. Obviously in WNY the state minimum wage is not what has caused wages to go up. 

[1915 Buffalo Bill Cody fan]

@IDBillzFan an ad hominem clutz like you pisses upon Jen and others sanctimoniously....pretending you have an experience in campaigns or at the Dept O State as I do surely qualified you to fart away a 4 word bumper sticker of mine when I ran for Congress.....using "EcoSocialism" as an epithet raises your IQ above 99...congratulations tail gunner Joe McCarthy....Bernie can use you dreaming up insults against Amy in Minnesota where she won't quit until after her primary favorite daughter swan song

[1915 Buffalo Bill Cody fan]

@3rdnlng @LSHMEAB thank you 2 for the first respectful discussion freed from the pissing loons here.....correction # 1 since Fort Worthless Newt Gingrich put welfare cuts on Slick Willie Oval Office Desk, parents with children have a 5 year lifetime limit imposed in a 2 year then another 2 year staging while requiring work search for pregnant women and taking minimum wage jobs if offered with child care & Medicaid extension for parents and continued coverage for children to age 18 if medically needy.....I shall offer more corrections if people here want to get involved with improving state by state variances helping the working poor victims of socialism for the rich like TrumpOLINI Bloomberg Amazon GM GE ExxonMobil et al like the remaining Kock Bros fascist alive

[Gavin in Va Beach]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Rubin is such a drifter grifter.  Can't wait until she embraces socialism on "principle."  These Never Trump Republicans are beginning to realize the Dems don't give a crap about them in choosing their nominee.

 

FTFY

[section122]

On 2/23/2020 at 5:01 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Food for thought. 

 

(But they're not communists!)

 

 

 

Who is Pradheep J. Shanker?  You have put a lot of his tweets up and so I googled him and got bupkis. Why should I care about his opinion?

 

5 hours ago, Albwan said:

I dunno Bernie might be the perfect storm, lazy freeloaders, dimwits and Trump haters.

Better start stockpiling tp, just in case.

 

I'd like to think I'm none of the 3.  I work hard and have since I got my first job at 14, am college educated, and dont hate Trump.

 

The government wastes a ton of money.  I'd rather see them "waste" that money on improved health care and education in place of endless war, conflict, and tax cuts for corporations/the rich in the name of bs trickle down economics.

 

32 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

 

Wage increases are not fueled by the raising of minimum wage. As an example Walmart (in NYS) is presently offering $13.75 an hour for raw rookies to come to work for them. By the end of this year that will be $15.00 an hour. NYS minimum wage is $11.80 per hour in most areas. Obviously in WNY the state minimum wage is not what has caused wages to go up. 

 

I'm going to disagree here.  NYS minimum wage is indeed 11.80 however fast food minimum wage (yes that's a thing) is 13.75. Therefore many employers have been forced to offer something similar as they compete for the same workforce.  Do you think someone care if McDonalds or WalMart signs their check?  Of course not.  The minimum wage increase has been very beneficial to low wage workers in that it has created choice for them.  It has forced employers to pay more directly because of the raising of minimum wage.

 

The added benefit is they make enough to come off public assistance programs.  The raised minimum wage had zero to do with Trump though.  It was workers in NYC organizing and started in 2015.

[Doc Brown]

23 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

FTFY

Thanks.

[GG]

10 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

Who is Pradheep J. Shanker?  You have put a lot of his tweets up and so I googled him and got bupkis. Why should I care about his opinion?

 

 

I'd like to think I'm none of the 3.  I work hard and have since I got my first job at 14, am college educated, and dont hate Trump.

 

The government wastes a ton of money.  I'd rather see them "waste" that money on improved health care and education in place of endless war, conflict, and tax cuts for corporations/the rich in the name of bs trickle down economics.

 

 

 You think that government wastes a lot of money when it's in charge of 15% of the economy, so your solution is to hand over another 30% and that will fix things?

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

As to the bolded, it usually happens the other way around.  The socialist/communist dictator run regimes I know of, they overtook the country by revolution and instituted communism/socialism like Castro and the European  communist countries (East Germany, Poland, Romania, etc.) when they were taken over by force

 

Venezuela begs to differ.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Koko78

[1915 Buffalo Bill Cody fan]

Thank you to the truth teller in New York....doubling the national minimum wage to 15 is reforming capitalism.   Period.  Socialism is about helping people in society with government programs like libraries schools fire police sewers streets bridges transit subsidized housing Veterans hospitals University research teaching hospitals parks Wildlife habitats and coast guards serving private people in rivers lakes and our ocean areas.....but the biggest socialism program of all is the military making the world safe for polluter oil war crime profiteering bankster zionists....Medicare Medicaid Food Stamps parents welfare guaranteed student loans Social Security are PARTNERSHIPS not welfare people pay in and get back when they qualify for the partnership....military is pure welfare....oil drillers don't pay taxes they are subsidized and government guns shoot anybody who tries to steal their own oil in their own country steal their oil back from USA oil drilling mining mahogany clear cutting or rubber tree tapping.....rich corporations don't pay taxes for the military that provides Security 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

 

I'm pretty sure Sanders proposals do not rise to the level of true socialism, although it's nebulous. Communism involves total state control, as I'm sure you know. Socialism is tricky in that it's somewhere in between.

Sanders’ central campaign planks are the Green New Deal and nationalizing health care. That’s turning over total control of three major sectors of our economy (health care, travel/transportation, and construction) to the state. 
 

He’s openly pushing a communist solution:transformation.  It’s not somewhere in between.
 

He’s openly saying it. 

 

1 hour ago, section122 said:

 

Who is Pradheep J. Shanker?  You have put a lot of his tweets up and so I googled him and got bupkis. Why should I care about his opinion?

 

You don’t have to care at all of course   He just makes a few really good points to consider. 

[LSHMEAB]

12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Sanders’ central campaign planks are the Green New Deal and nationalizing health care. That’s turning over total control of three major sectors of our economy (health care, travel/transportation, and construction) to the state. 
 

He’s openly pushing a communist solution:transformation.  It’s not somewhere in between.
 

He’s openly saying it. 

Communist? Ehhhh. That's a stretch. As far as healthcare, he's not advocating state control of the industry. He's advocating that the government provide insurance, which they already do for senior citizens. The Green New Deal will never come to fruition, but the OLD New Deal put people to work for the state in the construction industry, which could easily be construed as a state takeover.(And I'm sure it was at the time.)

 

I think many of these attacks include a great deal of hyperbole. 

 

You're gonna have to explain the transportation "takeover." Pretty sure all commercial travel is already controlled by the state.

 

Bit on an addendum; I fully believe capitalism is the best economic system...until it's not. Eventually so much wealth is consolidated at the top that it requires a reset button. In the 1960's, a CEO made on average 30 times that of the average worker. In 2020, that number is 400/approaching 500. The tax cuts gave the economy a sugar high, as they often do, but it USUALLY doesn't last. Perhaps this one was perfectly targeted, but I'm skeptical. I think a lot of people recognize that the economic numbers looks good, but wonder why it doesn't seem to be helping them PERSONALLY. Given that it's going to be Trump/Sanders, we'll have an opportunity to see how people actually feel. Just glad it's not going to be some squishy pushover like Petey or Pocahontas. 

 

It's actually refreshing that the conversation has shifted from palace intrigue/needless Trump bashing into discourse wrt the economy.

 

FINAL addendum; No rational human being wants to live in a society that doesn't allow someone to become wealthy. What we're talking about is marginal tax rates and how the taxes should be allocated. Redistribution of wealth is a scary buzzword, but WE ALREADY DO THAT. The tax rates in place are progressive in nature. So technically speaking, America redistributes wealth RIGHT NOW. The debate is, and has always been, the degree to which we want to redistribute wealth. Forbes/Herman Cain/Grover Norquist are proponents of a flat tax, which would effectively end the redistribution of wealth, but that never came to be. Sanders proposals would represent the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. What I'm getting at is that none of this is nearly as radical as it's being portrayed.

Edited February 25, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[Rob's House]

7 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I actually think that if the Ds were to all rally around Bernie he would have a decent shot.

 

The whole Bernie is like Stalin and Castro is way overblown and most people with a brain realize that.

 

He's running for president, not dictator.  As George W Bush himself told us, "a dictatorship would be a lot easier."

 

It's not overblown at all. It's who the guy is and has been throughout his career. It's the one thing he's been amazingly consistent about.

 

This idea that he's just a run of the mill Democrat who uses the word socialism a little too freely doesn't have any evidence to support it.

 

Now, if you're suggesting that he wouldn't be able to implement the radical changes he supports, then I agree with you. But it would not be for a lack of trying.

[Buffalo_Gal]

What Bernie stands for...
 

 

[Rob's House]

34 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Communist? Ehhhh. That's a stretch. As far as healthcare, he's not advocating state control of the industry. He's advocating that the government provide insurance, which they already do for senior citizens. The Green New Deal will never come to fruition, but the OLD New Deal put people to work for the state in the construction industry, which could easily be construed as a state takeover.(And I'm sure it was at the time.)

 

I think many of these attacks include a great deal of hyperbole. 

 

You're gonna have to explain the transportation "takeover." Pretty sure all commercial travel is already controlled by the state.

 

Bit on an addendum; I fully believe capitalism is the best economic system...until it's not. Eventually so much wealth is consolidated at the top that it requires a reset button. In the 1960's, a CEO made on average 30 times that of the average worker. In 2020, that number is 400/approaching 500. The tax cuts gave the economy a sugar high, as they often do, but it USUALLY doesn't last. Perhaps this one was perfectly targeted, but I'm skeptical. I think a lot of people recognize that the economic numbers looks good, but wonder why it doesn't seem to be helping them PERSONALLY. Given that it's going to be Trump/Sanders, we'll have an opportunity to see how people actually feel. Just glad it's not going to be some squishy pushover like Petey or Pocahontas. 

 

It's actually refreshing that the conversation has shifted from palace intrigue/needless Trump bashing into discourse wrt the economy.

 

I'm curious why people making ridiculous money concerns you.

 

It concerns me too, despite my economic libertarian leanings, but for what I imagine are entirely different reasons. I'm actually not so concerned about billionaires as I am concentration of power by multi-national corporations.

 

What threat do you see in rich CEOs and the like?

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I actually think that if the Ds were to all rally around Bernie he would have a decent shot.

 

The whole Bernie is like Stalin and Castro is way overblown and most people with a brain realize that.

 

He's running for president, not dictator.  As George W Bush himself told us, "a dictatorship would be a lot easier."

Best VP pick for that would be Michelle Obama.  Will never happen but that would be the best pick.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Bernie loves him some communism ...
 

 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Best VP pick for that would be Michelle Obama.  Will never happen but that would be the best pick.

What qualifications does she have to put her that close to becoming president?

[Hedge]

On 2/23/2020 at 11:24 AM, B-Man said:

These are starting to get a little fishy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

What qualifications does she have to put her that close to becoming president?

Black, female, and I will leave out the obvious transgender joke because I actually think Michelle is very nice looking. She does not dress for her frame or age (either her advisors hate her, or she does not listen to good advice, although her plastic surgeon is top-notch), and that is why she generally looks so terrible. When she dresses for her height and frame, she looks very good.

[Doc Brown]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

What qualifications does she have to put her that close to becoming president?

Oh god.  None.  She can tell Bernie where they keep the coffee filters in the West Wing dining room I guess.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....another victim of relaxed mental hygiene....SMH...........DEM-entia.......

Bernie Sanders reveals 'major plans' to be funded by new taxes, massive lawsuits, military cuts

By Gregg Re | Fox News

 

Bernie Sanders unexpectedly released a fact-sheet Monday night explaining that he'd pay for his sweeping new government programs through new taxes and massive lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, as well as by slashing spending on the military, among other methods.

The move sought to head off complaints from Republicans and some rival Democrats that his plans were economically unrealistic, especially after a head-turning CBS News interview in which the frustrated Vermont senator said he couldn't "rattle off to you every nickle and every dime" about his proposed expenditures.

He released his plan on his website just minutes after promising to do so during a CNN town hall.

However, the fact-sheet highlighted for the first time that many of Sanders' expected cost-saving measures relied on conjecture and best-case scenarios. For example, Sanders' document asserts that a "modest tax on Wall Street speculation ... will raise an estimated $2.4 trillion over ten years" and, in one fell swoop, make all "public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free ... and cancel all student debt over the next decade."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-payments-green-new-deal-medicare-for-all-explanation

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[ALF]

Bernie is making me nervous if he were the nominee , Trump would win and Congress would go republican in case Bernie pulled off the win.

 

[Wacka]

On 2/22/2020 at 10:07 AM, 1915 Buffalo Bill Cody fan said:

 

Correct capitalization and punctuation are your friends.

[snafu]

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Communist? Ehhhh. That's a stretch. As far as healthcare, he's not advocating state control of the industry. He's advocating that the government provide insurance, which they already do for senior citizens. The Green New Deal will never come to fruition, but the OLD New Deal put people to work for the state in the construction industry, which could easily be construed as a state takeover.(And I'm sure it was at the time.)

 

I think many of these attacks include a great deal of hyperbole. 

 

You're gonna have to explain the transportation "takeover." Pretty sure all commercial travel is already controlled by the state.

 

His idea for healthcare is to mandate that everyone be on exactly the same plan — no option.  He won’t entertain an option.  That would include every doctor and hospital and clinic. To pay for it, he wants to tax rich people.  He has no idea how much it will cost, so he refuses to define what “rich people” is. That’s government takeover. 

 

The New Deal of Roosevelt was implemented because people were desperate for jobs and food. Once the economy came back there was less need for Roosevelt’s new deal construction projects. Sanders wants to take a decent economy and alter it primarily out of his adherence to an economic theory that’s not anything like we have in place now.  Sanders’ “green new deal” is borne out of climate fear and is ill defined. Without any details, it is impossible for you to say it will be a good plan.  The only thing certain it that it will be an expensive plan, justified by largely unproven eco-altruism. Can you or anyone else tell me why the US should go completely green and ignore the remainder of the carbon-emitting humans on our planet? Reduce emission, sure.  Cut pollution, of course.  Eliminate ALL carbon? WTF?

 

You say that socialism is economic, but implementing socialism is the function of government. The implementation may start out benign but it will inevitably lead to harsher measures. Social welfare programs are meant to assist people who are for whatever reason unable to assist themselves.  Social welfare programs obviously have a place in society, but they’re not meant to be a platform for everyone to live exactly the same lives.  Therefore, there is little reason to expand them. 

 

Keep in mind that I’m not saying that the healthcare system in our country is good.  It does need fixing.  But Sanders’ approach is just a side door to his goal of reshaping everything.  When he says things like revolution and movement, he means revolution and drastic change.  He means to impose that change on a majority of citizens who don’t want that change to be so drastic. If you think that Executive Branch regulations aren’t enough to get the ball way down the road then you’re not seeing what Bernie can accomplish on his own — and for the next person that follows Bernie to take it further.

 

That socialist road sucks.  If all anyone can trot out as an example is “look at Denmark”, then that should tell you everything you need to know.  There’s absolutely no reason to even be sniffing that path if you know where it leads.

 

[RochesterRob]

19 minutes ago, ALF said:

Bernie is making me nervous if he were the nominee , Trump would win and Congress would go republican in case Bernie pulled off the win.

 

  I'm not seeing the benefit of having the house remain in Democratic control. Especially when more and more of the body is hard leftists.

[snafu]

21 minutes ago, ALF said:

Bernie is making me nervous if he were the nominee , Trump would win and Congress would go republican in case Bernie pulled off the win.

 

 

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  I'm not seeing the benefit of having the house remain in Democratic control. Especially when more and more of the body is hard leftists.

 

I actually think that a lot of people will vote D Congressperson if they also vote for Trump.

Enough people? Not sure.

 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

His idea for healthcare is to mandate that everyone be on exactly the same plan — no option.  He won’t entertain an option.  That would include every doctor and hospital and clinic. To pay for it, he wants to tax rich people.  He has no idea how much it will cost, so he refuses to define what “rich people” is. That’s government takeover. 

 

The New Deal of Roosevelt was implemented because people were desperate for jobs and food. Once the economy came back there was less need for Roosevelt’s new deal construction projects. Sanders wants to take a decent economy and alter it primarily out of his adherence to an economic theory that’s not anything like we have in place now.  Sanders’ “green new deal” is borne out of climate fear and is ill defined. Without any details, it is impossible for you to say it will be a good plan.  The only thing certain it that it will be an expensive plan, justified by largely unproven eco-altruism. Can you or anyone else tell me why the US should go completely green and ignore the remainder of the carbon-emitting humans on our planet? Reduce emission, sure.  Cut pollution, of course.  Eliminate ALL carbon? WTF?

 

You say that socialism is economic, but implementing socialism is the function of government. The implementation may start out benign but it will inevitably lead to harsher measures. Social welfare programs are meant to assist people who are for whatever reason unable to assist themselves.  Social welfare programs obviously have a place in society, but they’re not meant to be a platform for everyone to live exactly the same lives.  Therefore, there is little reason to expand them. 

 

Keep in mind that I’m not saying that the healthcare system in our country is good.  It does need fixing.  But Sanders’ approach is just a side door to his goal of reshaping everything.  When he says things like revolution and movement, he means revolution and drastic change.  He means to impose that change on a majority of citizens who don’t want that change to be so drastic. If you think that Executive Branch regulations aren’t enough to get the ball way down the road then you’re not seeing what Bernie can accomplish on his own — and for the next person that follows Bernie to take it further.

 

That socialist road sucks.  If all anyone can trot out as an example is “look at Denmark”, then that should tell you everything you need to know.  There’s absolutely no reason to even be sniffing that path if you know where it leads.

 

 

And they conveniently neglect how the most recent country to swap from capitalism to socialism went to hell in under 20 years.

 

If the system was so great, and failure was always due to poor implementation, shouldn't the country that had 80+ years worth of examples to look towards have gotten it right?  Presuming of course, that there is an actual right way to switch from capitalism to authoritarianism.  Why did Venezuela get it so wrong if there was a right way to do it?