Does Bernie Know Dems Need A Miracle?

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2020, 12:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: My point still stands. This article rather underlines that the author does not quite get the difference between a socialist and a social democrat. Again and again, the point made is "that's not socialism!", and this is exactly said misconception. It maybe is not, but it perfectly aligns with social democracy. The Nordic countries are shaped by social democrat's ideas. They come with all kinds of freedoms.
Your idea of Bernie socialism is not what Bernie has in mind. He has Denmark in mind. And his ideas largely fit that model.

Be assured, I won't vote for Sanders. For I live in one of those countries like the nordic countries that are shaped by social democracy, where Sanders wouldn't be a radical guy at all. And it sure is not a doomed hellhole. Life is good here.

The majority in this country don't understand what social democracy is and, to be fair, Bernie doesn't help because he calls himself a democratic socialist. I had a discussion with someone recently about the difference between the two. There are a bunch of people in this country that are touting democratic socialism but don't realize that this is actually a path towards socialism and not at all what Sanders is truly pushing.

This isn't why I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I have a big problem with his misuse of terms. Saying democratic socialism instead of social democracy, saying we don't need identity politics when he means tokenism and also constantly engages in identity politics.

(02-26-2020, 12:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I think he missed the part where the author stated the Nordic states are a combination of capitalism and social welfare programs; not socialism.

AKA social democracy

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2020, 08:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The majority in this country don't understand what social democracy is and, to be fair, Bernie doesn't help because he calls himself a democratic socialist. I had a discussion with someone recently about the difference between the two. There are a bunch of people in this country that are touting democratic socialism but don't realize that this is actually a path towards socialism and not at all what Sanders is truly pushing.

This isn't why I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I have a big problem with his misuse of terms. Saying democratic socialism instead of social democracy, saying we don't need identity politics when he means tokenism and also constantly engages in identity politics.


AKA social democracy

The people who don’t understand the difference between socialism and social democracy also think they believe in free market capitalism, yet support trade tariffs and government subsidies which interfere in the very free market they claim to support.

Whether Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist or a social democrat doesn’t matter to these voters because any form of the word “social” infers socialism.

Under Bernie Sanders healthcare proposals people like Brad would benefit due to income redistribution via higher taxes for people like me. Yet, he thinks he needs to go get a gun to protect himself from the increase in social services and benefits he would receive. Which is just another reason why I support investing in the education of our citizens. Not only will the majority earn more over their lifetime leading to an increase in quality of living, but they will also be better informed. And I’ve always believed education is its own reward.

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2020, 12:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don’t understand why you believe you need a gun for the hell that is socialism so it’s difficult to take it out of context.

I’m not a socialist and for the record I don’t believe Sanders is electable in a general election because people react like you have. You think you need to buy a gun because Sanders proposes social programs and you confuse those with socialism while lecturing others to research the difference when it is obvious you, yourself, don’t understand the difference.


I would prefer you to explain it. Because I’m interested in what you believe is the difference.


Medicare for all.


I think disabled people who can’t work should have a safety net if we are going to call ourselves the greatest country in the history of the world. I expect us to live up to our own hype and not just empty platitudes.

That doesn’t mean I think everyone should get the same benefits as you. And I don’t believe everyone should get the same benefits as you if they have the ability to work, but choose not to work.

But, you’re right about one thing. It is a horrible example of socialism because as you have already pointed out; that is an example of a social program, not socialism. And, yet, even after telling me it is a social program you do a 180 and claim it is a horrible example of socialism.


Writes the guy with benefits. Do you think you should get the same benefits as someone who works full time and pays for them? What are you, a socialist?

This is always the complaint of people who get benefits; they aren’t good enough.


And this is their other complaint. After bitching about how shitty their benefits are they complain about not wanting others to get the same benefits and F up their benefits. Which indicates to me you recognize the value of your benefits despite bitching about how shitty they are.

What's funny is that the author of the article posted wrote an e-book about ending all government aid programs (which he calls "free lunches") and even uses actual free school lunches as an argument to end it. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-25-2020, 08:25 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Just a hunch. Gut feeling. No facts.

https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

The truth shouldn't be a partisan thing. I hope that with some personal research you will change your mind about this. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2020, 09:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What's funny is that the author of the article posted wrote an e-book about ending all government aid programs (which he calls "free lunches") and even uses actual free school lunches as an argument to end it. 

Programs such as Social Security and Medicare were created out of a need. Kinda like the same way vaccines were developed out of a need. Vaccines have been so successful most people today haven’t seen a case of a vaccine preventable, childhood disease such as polio. This has led, in part, to the anti-vaxxer movement, people who are afraid of the vaccine because they are no longer afraid of the disease because they’ve never seen the disease because the vaccines are so successful.

Now we have people against social programs because they’ve never seen the conditions that sparked the need for these programs to begin with.

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2020, 10:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Programs such as Social Security and Medicare were created out of a need. Kinda like the same way vaccines were developed out of a need. Vaccines have been so successful most people today haven’t seen a case of a vaccine preventable, childhood disease such as polio. This has led, in part, to the anti-vaxxer movement, people who are afraid of the vaccine because they are no longer afraid of the disease because they’ve never seen the disease because the vaccines are so successful.

Now we have people against social programs because they’ve never seen the conditions that sparked the need for these programs to begin with.

Also people against it for everyone else because they've convinced themselves that those people do not actually need it but they do, which is even more asinine. 

[Benton]

(02-26-2020, 10:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Programs such as Social Security and Medicare were created out of a need. Kinda like the same way vaccines were developed out of a need. Vaccines have been so successful most people today haven’t seen a case of a vaccine preventable, childhood disease such as polio. This has led, in part, to the anti-vaxxer movement, people who are afraid of the vaccine because they are no longer afraid of the disease because they’ve never seen the disease because the vaccines are so successful.

Now we have people against social programs because they’ve never seen the conditions that sparked the need for these programs to begin with.

Reminds me of a friend of mine. Skilled laborer (welder). Got caught up on the right to work stuff several years ago. Hates unions. One day he was complaining that the company he works for  makes a lot but hasn't given raises out in years. I told him to get a new job. He said he shouldn't have to, that the workers should demand to make at least the national average.

I called him an idiot and we haven't spoken much since.

[CJD]

(02-25-2020, 06:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.  

I benefit from social programs, but that's not socialism.  

Actually, that's far from socialism.  I think you need to look up what socialism is.

You have a problem with investing in this country's farming industry to make us more independent from countries like China?




Once again, social programs are not socialism and you need to do some research to find out what socialism is before you vote in a psycho like Bernie.  

I have considered how my life would be destroyed by socialism and even mentioned on Facebook how I need to start training to get a gun license in case our country goes to socialism and the hell that comes with it.  

If that's your stance, then you should be fully behind Bernie. Because he is for "social programs" as you call it, not socialism, as you want to define it.

[CJD]

(02-26-2020, 12:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: My point still stands. This article rather underlines that the author does not quite get the difference between a socialist and a social democrat. Again and again, the point made is "that's not socialism!", and this is exactly said misconception. It maybe is not, but it perfectly aligns with social democracy. The Nordic countries are shaped by social democrat's ideas. They come with all kinds of freedoms.
Your idea of Bernie socialism is not what Bernie has in mind. He has Denmark in mind. And his ideas largely fit that model.

Be assured, I won't vote for Sanders. For I live in one of those countries like the nordic countries that are shaped by social democracy, where Sanders wouldn't be a radical guy at all. And it sure is not a doomed hellhole. Life is good here.

Am I crazy, or did that article just prove that Sanders isn't a socialist by saying that the system Bernie wants to model America after, Nordic countries, are not, in fact, socialist at all.

Seems like an endorsement for Bernie, if you ask me. That article should have calmed Brad down, not incensed his fears of socialism.

[hollodero]

(02-26-2020, 08:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This isn't why I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I have a big problem with his misuse of terms.

That is understandable.

I myself also have a problem with his gross oversimplifications, with him just using the same lines again and again, disregarding any nuance within the debate, with his populist tendencies and last not least with his rather radical and pretty much unfunded proposals. One might think the European is team Bernie all the way, but for me that is not true.

Also, when Cuba is brought up his first words should be that this form of socialism has nothing to do with his ideology. A chance he missed, imho.

(02-26-2020, 11:12 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Am I crazy, or did that article just prove that Sanders isn't a socialist by saying that the system Bernie wants to model America after, Nordic countries, are not, in fact, socialist at all.

Seems like an endorsement for Bernie, if you ask me. That article should have calmed Brad down, not incensed his fears of socialism.

That's pretty much how I read it, though to be fair the author did not intend to calm down Mr. Fritz, but to increase worries by mislabeling Bernie's idea of social democracy with socialism that is not found in those scandinavian countries. Bels is right though that Bernie doesn't really help this case by mislabeling these words himself quite a bit.

And many americans seem to have a deep, instinctive reaction to every proposal or label that carries the word "social" in it. As if that word means soviet tanks will roll through their garden and their playboy collection gets collectivized. Additionally, more and more it seems to me that many americans tend to see things out of a zero sum perspective. If someone is helped, that means someone else suffers, hence every "social" program is unfair to those that don't need it.

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2020, 12:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is understandable.

I myself also have a problem with his gross oversimplifications, with him just using the same lines again and again, disregarding any nuance within the debate, with his populist tendencies and last not least with his rather radical and pretty much unfounded proposals. One might think the European is team Bernie all the way, but for me that is not true.

Also, when Cuba is brought up his first words should be that this form of socialism has nothing to do with his ideology. A chance he missed, imho.

I much prefer a more European approach to things and while Sanders supports that in many ways, Warren is closer to it in my view.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2020, 10:58 AM)Benton Wrote: Reminds me of a friend of mine. Skilled laborer (welder). Got caught up on the right to work stuff several years ago. Hates unions. One day he was complaining that the company he works for  makes a lot but hasn't given raises out in years. I told him to get a new job. He said he shouldn't have to, that the workers should demand to make at least the national average.

I called him an idiot and we haven't spoken much since.

He should just demand one of those merit pay raises because I’m sure he is a model of American exceptionalism and see what happens.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2020, 11:07 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If that's your stance, then you should be fully behind Bernie. Because he is for "social programs" as you call it, not socialism, as you want to define it.

You would think that, right? But, socialism; get your gun now while you still can.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-26-2020, 11:12 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Am I crazy, or did that article just prove that Sanders isn't a socialist by saying that the system Bernie wants to model America after, Nordic countries, are not, in fact, socialist at all.

Seems like an endorsement for Bernie, if you ask me. That article should have calmed Brad down, not incensed his fears of socialism.

Brad is the king of confirmation bias.  Once he’s set his mind a certain way, he refuses to let new information change it.  Even hearing positive things from someone who lives in a country where they’ve implemented what Bernie is promoting, as hollodero has done here, will not likely be enough to change his mind from thinking that Bernie is the next coming of Josef Stalin.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2020, 11:12 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Am I crazy, or did that article just prove that Sanders isn't a socialist by saying that the system Bernie wants to model America after, Nordic countries, are not, in fact, socialist at all.

Seems like an endorsement for Bernie, if you ask me. That article should have calmed Brad down, not incensed his fears of socialism.

Yeah, it did. But, do your research. And then get your gun.

[*jason*]

(02-26-2020, 01:12 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Brad is the king of confirmation bias.  Once he’s set his mind a certain way, he refuses to let new information change it.  Even hearing positive things from someone who lives in a country where they’ve implemented what Bernie is promoting, as hollodero has done here, will not likely be enough to change his mind from thinking that Bernie is the next coming of Josef Stalin.  

Typical socialist (yinzer) response.

[Dill]

(02-25-2020, 08:13 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Dill Wrote: Are you saying that there is no current intel assessment that Russia intends to interfere with our election in favor of Trump in 2020?

Fair questions, but it was a response out of frustration. Do I think the Russians have been interfering? I don't know, I suspect they could be. They've already come at Trump with this, and now Bernie as well. I think it's quite possible the dems are behind the Russian interference. Regardless of the goals of the party, it doesn't mean some individuals are not capable.

Thanks for the response H-Dog.

As far as Russians interfering, our intel services, CIA and FBI have been telling us that since 2016.  Here is a link from 2019.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/politics/fbi-russian-election-interference.html.

Here is one from the recent dust up that got McGuire fired and replaced with a Trump loyalist. The new twist is that Russians appear now to be interfering in primaries. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/politics/russian-interference-trump-democrats.html.

Dozens of people across many agencies and offices work together to produce such intel assessments. Democrats in Congress or elsewhere cannot get "behind" intelligence agencies any more than Republicans can, in order to shape their intel products. They do not have that capability. So Adam Schiff cannot simply "make up" an intel report about electing interference and then post it on Twitter.**

Congress and the president really only have two options to control intel products--spin them after the fact with some extra framing, or redact/completely suppress them.*

Trump, not Schiff, now has the real "capability" in this matter. He was angry that Schiff was at the hearing, fearing that he might use the info against him. By replacing the DNI with a loyalist, he can now filter what intel Congress receives. Nevermind that Congress has a right to unfiltered intel, and our national security depends on that. Schiff simply does not have the power Trump does, and I don't think that, if he did, he would turn it to partisan and personal purposes.  Trump can now claim Schiff "got it wrong" and keep a lid on any proof otherwise.


*This reminds me somewhat of that happened before the Iraq War, when Cheney et al. were able to suppress intelligence unfavorable to their goals and mix their own unvetted product in with the properly vetted intel which went to Congress. The result was successful for team Bush--a resolution giving the president power to make the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. Now Trump has that power, and the people in place to exercise it.

**Thought I'd better add this for "balance." Nationalreview says some intel folks think Dems misinterpreted the briefing.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/officials-dispute-briefing-on-2020-russian-interference-favoring-trump-the-intelligence-doesnt-say-that/

[Dill]

(02-26-2020, 01:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You would think that, right? But, socialism; get your gun now while you still can.

I know you have a good knowledge of weapons, Breech.  What kind of gun would be good for use on SOCIALISTS?

I am afraid that once they get in power, I'll no longer be able to get one. So I need to stock up now.

Perhaps an assault rifle easily convertible to automatic? 
A hand gun to complement, plus one for my wife--what should I be looking at?

I'm thinking stopping power is not a big issue since most socialists are wimps and will quit if even slightly wounded.
Maybe high rate of fire? BIG guns, scary looking?

I've heard that the NRA sells scopes that can tell a Social Democrat from a Democratic Socialist. They have night vision too.
Is that true and if so how can I get one?

[Dill]

(02-25-2020, 06:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: When has socialism EVER worked?  You'd rather the government control everything and strip us of the freedoms that this country is based on and that made our country great?

If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then I don't see "government control" as a threat to "the freedoms this country is based on." WE would be the government and in control of it, and it would protect our freedoms.

What worries me is that we may not have that kind of government, rather a government for the 1% and their lobbyists.  They don't want the government controlling them, preventing them from charging 400% more than Canadians pay for drugs, or stopping them from strip mining Bears Ears Park. But they are for subsidies and tax breaks--socialism for the rich. 

Capitalism in America is like two sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for lunch--and one sheep* always votes with the wolf.



*That's the sheep who hates unions and wants to get the government out of Medicare.

[CJD]

(02-26-2020, 02:08 PM)Dill Wrote: I know you have a good knowledge of weapons, Breech.  What kind of gun would be good for use on SOCIALISTS?

I heard that if you want to kill a socialist, you need silver bullets.