Does Bernie Know Dems Need A Miracle?

[Benton]

(02-28-2020, 01:09 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: When you force it on people and don't give people the choice, it's socialism.  

Do you need more of an explanation than that?

When did you chose to bail out Farmers? Or subsidize billions in college costs? Did you chose to bail out banks that pay little to no taxes? When did you vote on social security? What election had WIC on the ballot?

None of them, because that's not how our brand of socialism works. It works as a representative democracy, where we elect people who get chosen to spend taxpayer money. 

Socialism isn't based on how you feel about their decisions.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-28-2020, 02:39 PM)Benton Wrote: When did you chose to bail out Farmers? Or subsidize billions in college costs? Did you chose to bail out banks that pay little to no taxes? When did you vote on social security? What election had WIC on the ballot?

None of them, because that's not how our brand of socialism works. It works as a representative democracy, where we elect people who get chosen to spend taxpayer money. 

Socialism isn't based on how you feel about their decisions.

You might also ask whether taxpayers had a choice to pay for the schools at which he speaks ...

[Yojimbo]

I want to vote on which of the 1,000 military and black ops bases we have around the globe, get to stay operational.

[fredtoast]

(02-28-2020, 11:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yes, because you think I WANT to have to get government aid and be financially dependent on the government?!

No one is forcing you to take it.

Your family is wealthy enough to take care of you.  If you hate socialism then just refuse the benefits.

[*Nately120*]

I can't believe I missed 7 pages of this delightful thread. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but Bernie and the democrats do need a miracle to win in 2020 because Trump is a member of the political party that can get less votes but still win by a landslide.

Trump is a plutocratic populist who signed up as a republican because having that R by your name is the "easy mode" for winning the presidential election. I predict another election where Trump gets less votes but wins the election because the neo-con party is the New England Patriots of politics. So it goes, we get what we deserve.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-27-2020, 04:31 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ha.  Typical Steelers fan.

I happily debate with anyone that post things that make sense and have any knowledgable backing.

I never said you didn't debate.  I said there's no point in doing it with you.  
 
Your dismissal of me because of the team I root for (a completely irrelevant fact in this forum) is a case in point.  

[Belsnickel]

I saw this meme, today, and knew it belonged here.

[BFritz21]

(02-28-2020, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one is forcing you to take it.

Your family is wealthy enough to take care of you.  If you hate socialism then just refuse the benefits.

1  Social security and the benefits I get AREN'T socialism.

2  Once again, you take personal shots at me and bring my family into it.  If I did anything like that to you, you'd be up in arms to have me suspended.  

3  My family shouldn't have to spend their hard-earned money on me, especially since I'm an adult.  My family does spend a lot of money on me, which kills me, and if I didn't get any benefits, they'd have to spend so much time and money on me that their lives would be altered dramatically.

4  I am grateful for the benefits, I get, but, like always, you alter the meaning of my post.  If I didn't need the benefits, I certainly would decline them.

[treee]

(03-03-2020, 05:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 1  Social security and the benefits I get AREN'T socialism.

2  Once again, you take personal shots at me and bring my family into it.  If I did anything like that to you, you'd be up in arms to have me suspended.  

3  My family shouldn't have to spend their hard-earned money on me, especially since I'm an adult.  My family does spend a lot of money on me, which kills me, and if I didn't get any benefits, they'd have to spend so much time and money on me that their lives would be altered dramatically.

4  I am grateful for the benefits, I get, but, like always, you alter the meaning of my post.  If I didn't need the benefits, I certainly would decline them.

Do people have a choice to pay the taxes that go towards your benefits?

[CJD]

(03-03-2020, 05:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 1  Social security and the benefits I get AREN'T socialism.

Exactly.

America's social programs are not socialism (by your definition of socialism).

And neither is anything Bernie is proposing.

[Benton]

(03-03-2020, 05:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 1  Social security and the benefits I get AREN'T socialism.

2  Once again, you take personal shots at me and bring my family into it.  If I did anything like that to you, you'd be up in arms to have me suspended.  

3  My family shouldn't have to spend their hard-earned money on me, especially since I'm an adult.  My family does spend a lot of money on me, which kills me, and if I didn't get any benefits, they'd have to spend so much time and money on me that their lives would be altered dramatically.

4  I am grateful for the benefits, I get, but, like always, you alter the meaning of my post.  If I didn't need the benefits, I certainly would decline them.

1- it is. Even more so than, say, someone retiring at 65 and drawing social security they've paid.  You're drawing money you didn't pay... That's basic socialism.

3- that's still socialism.

4- it's still socialism. You, a mom working two jobs needing WIC, a guy who can't afford insulin because the company that makes it decided to up the price 500%. Socialism, socialism and socialism.

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2020, 05:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 3  My family shouldn't have to spend their hard-earned money on me, especially since I'm an adult. 

Then who should?

Your church?

Can't be the government because that would be socialism.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(03-03-2020, 11:07 AM)Benton Wrote: 1- it is. Even more so than, say, someone retiring at 65 and drawing social security they've paid.  You're drawing money you didn't pay... That's basic socialism.

3- that's still socialism.

4- it's still socialism. You, a mom working two jobs needing WIC, a guy who can't afford insulin because the company that makes it decided to up the price 500%. Socialism, socialism and socialism.

No, no, you don't understand.  It's only socialism when it benefits people other than him.  You know: the lazy bums who don't deserve it. 

[Belsnickel]

Ok, lot's of confusion here on what is socialism and what isn't. Let's begin with a primer: Socialism is an economic theory in which collective, public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods occurs.

Medicare/medicaid, and by extension medicare-for-all as a single-payer healthcare system, still utilizes private individuals and companies to produce and distribute the goods/services for healthcare. This means that it is not a socialist program.

Socialized medicine, like the National Health Service that exists in the UK, is a different thing. The doctors work for the NHS. That is government (public) control of the means of production and distribution of goods. This is a socialist program and is not what is being proposed by anyone of any consequence in this country.

Brad: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

Benton: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

Anyone else who is using a definition other than the one I provided above: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

When you overuse the term socialism to describe social welfare policies you are playing into Cold War era fear-mongering where anything and everything that didn't fit our way of life was deemed socialist/communist.

[fredtoast]

[BmorePat87]

(03-03-2020, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ok, lot's of confusion here on what is socialism and what isn't. Let's begin with a primer: Socialism is an economic theory in which collective, public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods occurs.

Medicare/medicaid, and by extension medicare-for-all as a single-payer healthcare system, still utilizes private individuals and companies to produce and distribute the goods/services for healthcare. This means that it is not a socialist program.

Socialized medicine, like the National Health Service that exists in the UK, is a different thing. The doctors work for the NHS. That is government (public) control of the means of production and distribution of goods. This is a socialist program and is not what is being proposed by anyone of any consequence in this country.

Brad: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

Benton: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

Anyone else who is using a definition other than the one I provided above: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

When you overuse the term socialism to describe social welfare policies you are playing into Cold War era fear-mongering where anything and everything that didn't fit our way of life was deemed socialist/communist.

Says the leftist who works in academia... 

[Benton]

(03-03-2020, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Benton: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

.

Agreed. Buuuuut, it's a lot easier to put things in a box people understand. The majority of people see government involvement as socialism and no involvement as capitalism . That's the way things are framed, so that's how people understand it. 

[J24]

Bernie has a Better chance than Biden to win but neither have a good chance at winning. 2024 will be more interesting election because neither party has a clear front runner to be the candidate.

[CJD]

(03-04-2020, 02:58 AM)J24 Wrote: Bernie has a Better chance than Biden to win but neither have a good chance at winning. 2024 will be more interesting election because neither party has a clear front runner to be the candidate.

I don't know what's going to happen in 2024. 

Maybe Elizabeth gives it another try, but I think Biden and Bernie are done (assuming Trump wins re-election). 

I suppose Pete can give it another try, but I just don't see him ever winning the presidency. His main form of communication is platitudes and "elegant" speak with absolutely no substance to it. That may have worked in the 90s or early 2000s, but I can't imagine it working in the 2020s. In order to drive support to the polls nowadays you have to actually stand for something.
Or you have to be associated with Obama.

I could see Stacey Abrams and AOC running. I'm not sure how they'll do in a nationwide arena, but it'll definitely be fun to watch. But overall, you're right that we have no slam dunk candidate in 2024.

As for who the Republicans are running, there's three schools of thought that I've seen:

1. Nikki Haley
 I'd never heard of her before she resigned from her position as Ambassador to the UN, but apparently Republicans, especially Never Trumpers, love her...I don't know why, exactly, but the most noteworthy position she's seemed to take (based on a quick googling) is to remove the confederate flag from the South Carolina state house which is nice...unfortunately she didn't do it because she opposed the southern glorification of traitors but rather because Dylann Roof "hijacked" the ode to racism for...his own ode to racism, I guess? Not a super hot take, but for a Republican it's at least a start...

2. Donald Trump Jr.
This one I have a harder time believing. His father is at least witty, brutal and effective in his critiques of America and the media. Jr. is like a cheap knockoff of his father and is somehow even dumber. But if you're looking for a place to channel your sick cultism for the Trump brand, I guess DJTJ is where Trumpists will be forced to go...

3. Mike Pence
This one I find kind of laughable, but a lot of people have polled that this is their pick for the next election. I find it hard to believe it possible to get a religious radical in the White House, but then again...if Trump can win, anybody can.

It's gonna be a long decade...

[Belsnickel]

(03-04-2020, 02:58 AM)J24 Wrote: Bernie has a Better chance than Biden to win but neither have a good chance at winning. 2024 will be more interesting election because neither party has a clear front runner to be the candidate.

As long as we get rid of these Boomers, I'll be happy. It's time for Gen X to take the reins.