Sanders Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperLuigi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Real “socialism” doesn’t exist anywhere, and never did. European “socialist” countries have plenty of wealth privilege.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing - NO European country claims to be “socialist”, though. It is Americans, both left and right, who foist the label of socialism on us. The EU is a single, free-market economy and customs union. Keynesianism has lingered longer in Europe (or at least substantial elements of it), but that ain’t state ownership of the means of production. We just haven’t (with the exception of England post-Thatcher) embraced the neoliberal orthodoxy of the post-Cold War era with quite the same gusto as our American brethren across the pond. Calling us socialists though is a horrible slur, a slur flung at us by both Dems and Repubs.

America is the only country in the West where “socialism” as a term seems to retain some currency in the political scene, weirdly enough. When Europeans hear Sanders refer to his “democratic socialism”, we get an awful sense of seventies nostalgia - a throwback to a bygone era that is ancient history for today’s young Europeans.

Sure, some ‘socialist’ parties remain but most of them preach social democracy, not “socialism”. They all abandoned the “collective public ownership” clause of their party constitutions after 1989. Then you get a few nutters, like Jeremy Corbyn in Britain - another aged seventies ‘marxist’ goon, who has zero chance of being elected. Conservatism vs Progressivism is perhaps the correct terminology for the modern mainstream left/right worldwide, not capitalism vs socialism. Throughout the West, the market economy is a given. It’s not up for debate, as a general rule. Distrust for neo-liberalism? Sure that’s getting more and more pervasive but not socialism. We all know a market economy works a gazillion times better than a planned one. That doesn’t mean we should endorse trickle down economics and libertarianism, however - with its naive trust in a magical, value-free market.

See this as an example of what I mean:

valuewalk.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-socialism/
**Bernie Sanders – The Myth Of Scandinavian Socialism
Click to expand...
The Nordic model is far from socialist**
Click to expand...
Bernie Sanders has single-handedly brought the term “democratic socialism” into the contemporary American political lexicon and shaken millions of Millennials out of their apathy towards politics. Even if he does not win the Democratic nomination, his impact on American politics will be evident for years to come…
Click to expand...
Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.
Click to expand...
In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.
Click to expand...
While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Bernie Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.
Click to expand...
**In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,
Click to expand...
I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.**
Click to expand...
The Scandinavians embrace a brand of free-market capitalism that exists in conjunction with a large welfare state, known as the “Nordic Model,” which includes many policies that democratic socialists would likely abhor.
Click to expand...
For example, democratic socialists are generally opponents of global capitalism and free trade, but the Scandinavian countries have fully embraced these things. The Economist magazine describes the Scandinavian countries as “stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies.” Perhaps this is why Denmark, Norway, and Sweden rank among the most globalized countries in the entire world. These countries all also rank in the top 10 easiest countries to do business in.
Click to expand...
How do supporters of Bernie Sanders feel about the minimum wage? You will find no such government-imposed floors on labor in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark. Instead, minimum wages are decided by collective-bargaining agreements between unions and employers; they typically vary on an occupational or industrial basis. Union-imposed wages lock out the least skilled and do their own damage to an economy, but such a decentralized system is still arguably a much better way of doing things than having the central government set a one-size fits all wage policy that covers every occupation nationwide.
Click to expand...
In a move that would be considered radically pro-capitalist by young Americans who #FeelTheBern, Sweden adopted a universal school choice system in the 1990s that is nearly identical to the system proposed by libertarian economist Milton Friedman his 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education.”
Click to expand...
Like me, most Scandanavians are eager lovers of free trade and trade liberalisation…I’ve yet to encounter a socialist who was pro-market, have you? 🤷

Americans have got we Europeans badly wrong. Americans idealize and demonize us by foisting onto our societies caricatures IMHO.
 
jtauke said:
Will you be burning your social security checks later in life?

It be rather hypocritical for you to benefit monetarily from a socialist program.

Better not use Medicaid or Medicare either.
Click to expand...
I am not going to burn my Social Security checks because Social Security is not inherently socialist. Social Security can exist in capitalism.
didymus said:
Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Lawyers Do Not Appreciate Your “Bernie is My Comrade” T-Shirt

https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/afisher/2016_04/berniecomrade.png?h=346&w=350
Click to expand...
I would make the shirt with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Sanders because they are closer to democratic socialism.
Vouthon said:
That’s the thing - NO European country claims to be “socialist”, though. It is Americans, both left and right, who foist the label of socialism on us.
Click to expand...
Portugal claims to be socialist.
 
anon67074017 said:
I am not going to burn my Social Security checks because Social Security is not inherently socialist. Social Security can exist in capitalism.
Click to expand...
:confused: Social Security is as socialist as it gets. It takes from those who work and gives to those who won’t work.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
However, I don’t see where any of the candidates are going to do any harm to unborn children. What precisely do you expect them to do? They can’t make abortion illegal.
Click to expand...
No harm? They certainly could make abortion illegal at least eventually, but the Dems believe in abortion on demand, so they won’t. They even make all of us pay for it in order to facilitate it. It’s part of the Dem party platform.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No harm? They certainly could make abortion illegal at least eventually, but the Dems believe in abortion on demand, so they won’t. They even make all of us pay for it in order to facilitate it. It’s part of the Dem party platform.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Which candidate can legitimately make abortion illegal?
 
Crossbones said:
Wow, you’re right. The number of abortions were relatively steady under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, but dropped under Clinton and Obama.

I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...
Older women don’t get abortions because they don’t get pregnant. As the population ages, pregnancies drop. Also, chemical abortifacients are more available now.

And, while it’s perhaps being overly optimistic, it just might be that despite the state paganism of the Clinton and Obama administrations, people might actually be realizing what abortion is. Eventually, revelations like the “body parts selling” on the Brietbart films will have an effect on at least some people.

And too, Republican state legislatures have enacted numerous laws to discourage abortion mills and abortions. It takes a long time for some things to have an effect
 
gracepoole said:
Wait, what? Which candidate can legitimately make abortion illegal?
Click to expand...
No one candidate other than a presidential candidate is likely to do it, but a president certainly might by appointing prolife justices that might reverse or at least seriously curtail abortion on demand.

That’s not far fetched. The CArhart case involved only partial birth abortions, but all Repub justices voted to support state bans on it, while all the Dems voted for partial birth abortion on demand.

A Democrat president will stack the court with pro-abortion justices, and about that no one could have a serious doubt.

But certainly, no single congressional candidate could.
 
Crossbones said:
Bishop Kicanas speaks on a ‘vast array of issues’ that a Catholic must consider when choosing who to vote.

“Then, preachers can help people to understand the complexity of the moral issues that face our culture and our society. The idea, obviously, is not to support any particular candidate, but helping people to see that the church teaches the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, which involves a vast array of issues important in the community in which we live. It’s important to be able to speak knowledgably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”

Why would he speak on a vast array of issues, when it really just is one issue?
Click to expand...
He speaks on these issues because they come into play if the candidates do not differ in their stance on abortion I ask you again where does he say it is licit
for a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion canidate when a more pro life canidate is a available? I have provided quotes where members of the magestrium say it is not
 
Ridgerunner said:
No one candidate other than a presidential candidate is likely to do it, but a president certainly might by appointing prolife justices that might reverse or at least seriously curtail abortion on demand.

That’s not far fetched. The CArhart case involved only partial birth abortions, but all Repub justices voted to support state bans on it, while all the Dems voted for partial birth abortion on demand.

A Democrat president will stack the court with pro-abortion justices, and about that no one could have a serious doubt.

But certainly, no single congressional candidate could.
Click to expand...
Certainly you know that Republican-appointed justices decided in favor of Roe v. Wade, right?
 
estesbob said:
If Catholics followed their faith when they voted abortion would have been banned years ago
Click to expand...
Many Catholics have followed their faith when voting, even when voting for disparate candidates. Some of them disagree with your insistence that you’re reading the Church’s directives correctly.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Older women don’t get abortions because they don’t get pregnant. As the population ages, pregnancies drop. Also, chemical abortifacients are more available now.

And, while it’s perhaps being overly optimistic, it just might be that despite the state paganism of the Clinton and Obama administrations, people might actually be realizing what abortion is. Eventually, revelations like the “body parts selling” on the Brietbart films will have an effect on at least some people.

And too, Republican state legislatures have enacted numerous laws to discourage abortion mills and abortions. It takes a long time for some things to have an effect
Click to expand...
Wow, women only age under Democratic Presidents. The Republicans need to use this as a campaign issue!
 
gracepoole said:
Certainly you know that Republican-appointed justices decided in favor of Roe v. Wade, right?
Click to expand...
A generation and more ago, yes, when nobody saw it coming. Let’s talk about the modern era. Carhart vs. Gonzales is a perfect illustration of what happens under each party now that the issue has been squarely faced. All Dems on the court are for abortion on demand, and all Repubs are against it. Even Kennedy, who is the renegade Repub (and Catholic) voted against partial birth abortion. It was too much even for him.
 
estesbob said:
He speaks on these issues because they come into play if the candidates do not differ in their stance on abortion I ask you again where does he say it is licit
for a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion canidate when a more pro life canidate is a available? I have provided quotes where members of the magestrium say it is not
Click to expand...
He’s speaking right before the 2008 election, so there isn’t a hypothetical here. He is clearly speaking on McCain vs. Obama. Again, I must repeat his words on issues being complex:

“Then, preachers can help people to understand the complexity of the moral issues that face our culture and our society. The idea, obviously, is not to support any particular candidate, but helping people to see that the church teaches the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, which involves a vast array of issues important in the community in which we live. It’s important to be able to speak knowledgably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”
 
gracepoole said:
Many Catholics have followed their faith when voting, even when voting for disparate candidates. Some of them disagree with your insistence that you’re reading the Church’s directives correctly.
Click to expand...
Such Catholic might have followed their subjective beliefs about right and wrong, but they didn’t follow the teachings of the Church in supporting abortion politicians.

What’s mysterious about “intrinsic evil”? That means evil every time and of its very nature. The Church does teach that we can’t support, with our votes, intrinsic evil. Abortion, the Church says, is intrinsic evil. We can only vote for an abortion supporter (Clinton) if the opposing candidate supports an equally grave intrinsic evil. None does.

nothing mysterious about that. Only our own wish sometimes make it seem so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top