Vermont poised to elect America's first socialist senator

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeWM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike & Richardols - I put up Bernie’s page so people could see what the man has to say for himself instead what other might say about him. “Horses mouth,” and all that.

I think that no matter what one thinks Socialism means it has its root meaning in the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. No matter what else Socialism may do or stand for that may be in line with the good of Social Justice, Socialism always denotes a forced redistribution of wealth by the State.

As Catholics we are opposed to the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. I think we all can agree on that no matter what our political stances are on anything or everything else, yes?

Now Bernie Sanders may not want that, that’s why I posted his web site so anyone that wanted to know could check and see. I took a quick look at the site too and I don’t see that as one of his goals. Maybe he is using the Socialism tag as a way to show he has a more independent stance than most others. I don’t know; possible?
 
Quite frankly, a candidates own website is not the best resource to see where they stand…they are nothing but ad campaigns positioned as their “issue” stances.

To really see where Bernie stands, look at his voting record:
vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H4042103

Vote Smart also has an issues page, but unfortunately Bernie doesn’t want to play:
vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=H4042103
REPRESENTATIVE BERNARD ‘BERNIE’ SANDERS REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY
RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2006
NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY

Key national leaders of both major parties including:
John McCain, Republican Senator
Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
Michael Dukakis, Former Democratic Governor
Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President

Over 100 news organizations throughout the nation also urged their candidates to supply their issue positions through the National Political Awareness Test.
Click to expand...
b_justb said:
Mike & Richardols - I put up Bernie’s page so people could see what the man has to say for himself instead what other might say about him. “Horses mouth,” and all that.

I think that no matter what one thinks Socialism means it has its root meaning in the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. No matter what else Socialism may do or stand for that may be in line with the good of Social Justice, Socialism always denotes a forced redistribution of wealth by the State.

As Catholics we are opposed to the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. I think we all can agree on that no matter what our political stances are on anything or everything else, yes?

Now Bernie Sanders may not want that, that’s why I posted his web site so anyone that wanted to know could check and see. I took a quick look at the site too and I don’t see that as one of his goals. Maybe he is using the Socialism tag as a way to show he has a more independent stance than most others. I don’t know; possible?
Click to expand...
 
b_justb said:
Mike & Richardols - I put up Bernie’s page so people could see what the man has to say for himself instead what other might say about him. “Horses mouth,” and all that.

I think that no matter what one thinks Socialism means it has its root meaning in the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. No matter what else Socialism may do or stand for that may be in line with the good of Social Justice, Socialism always denotes a forced redistribution of wealth by the State.

As Catholics we are opposed to the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. I think we all can agree on that no matter what our political stances are on anything or everything else, yes?

Now Bernie Sanders may not want that, that’s why I posted his web site so anyone that wanted to know could check and see. I took a quick look at the site too and I don’t see that as one of his goals. Maybe he is using the Socialism tag as a way to show he has a more independent stance than most others. I don’t know; possible?
Click to expand...
He has a 100% pro-abortion voting record. He even opposed baninng partial birth abortions. I am agahst that so many catholics in this thread support this man.
 
estesbob said:
He has a 100% pro-abortion voting record. He even opposed baninng partial birth abortions. I am agahst that so many catholics in this thread support this man.
Click to expand...
So far on this thread I’ve only seen 2 people supporting him. I’m not one of those 2 😃

I liked rlg94086’s link to Bernie’s voting record, very nice.
 
b_justb said:
I think that no matter what one thinks Socialism means it has its root meaning in the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. No matter what else Socialism may do or stand for that may be in line with the good of Social Justice, Socialism always denotes a forced redistribution of wealth by the State.
Click to expand...
You correctly say “has a root meaning” and “denotes.” It is more useful, I believe, to see what has it been in action, and as Mike noted about Sweden and Great Britain, it did not involve renunciation of property or forced redistribution in those countries.

And, as we all know, the “socialist” countries of the former Soviet Bloc were in no way socialist. Even there, one had only to see what that “socialism” was in action.
 
b_justb said:
So far on this thread I’ve only seen 2 people supporting him.
Click to expand...
Given that Mike and I don’t vote in Vermont, and haven’t sent him any money nor tried to get out the vote for him, I fail to see how we are supporting him. I see him as a change from the usual tweedledee-tweedledum Dem/GOP choices in Washington.

And judging by his reception in his home state, I’ll leave it to Vermonters to either support or not support him.
 
MikeWM said:
Yes. She broke what we called the ‘post-war consensus’ (though it was already getting a bit strained), where there was broad agreement on the main issues, whatever party was in power.

You may guess I’m not exactly a fan of Mrs Thatcher 😛 But then I’m from Liverpool, and it would be hard to find many people who grew up in Liverpool in the 1980s who are fans of Mrs Thatcher 😉
Mike
Click to expand...
Oh yes - it was the one two punch with Thatcher and Regan and everyone believing that they were doing good.

100 years from now, (IF WE’RE LUCKY) historians will credit those two for handing over power from govenrments to global corporations - trashing middle and lower classes and bringing a big smile to the fallen angels! (just my opinion on that last theoligical part, but really, serve God or serve mammon as they say)
 
b_justb said:
Socialism always denotes a forced redistribution of wealth by the State.
Click to expand...
It depends. A horrible answer, but the truth 🙂 Most Socialists wouldn’t be pushing for this to be a quick process, but they would argue that the gap between rich and poor should be narrowing (rather than widening, as it currently is). Socialists often push for this to be achieved through equality of opportunity. So in a way that in of itself is redistribution, but probably not in the way you mean. Few would argue that Bill Gates should have his wealth seized and $100 checks go out to everyone tomorrow.
As Catholics we are opposed to the forced redistribution of wealth by the State. I think we all can agree on that no matter what our political stances are on anything or everything else, yes?
Click to expand...
She also doesn’t want us to seize BillG’s wealth tomorrow. However, the Church is no more a fan of a widening of the gap between rich and poor than I am. If state action is required to turn that around, then state action it has to be. I don’t think action is the same thing as what is classically described as redistribution of wealth (is medicaid redistribution? Is the education system redistribution?) but that probably depends on your politics.

Mike
 
Richardols said:
Given that Mike and I don’t vote in Vermont, and haven’t sent him any money nor tried to get out the vote for him, I fail to see how we are supporting him. I see him as a change from the usual tweedledee-tweedledum Dem/GOP choices in Washington.

And judging by his reception in his home state, I’ll leave it to Vermonters to either support or not support him.
Click to expand...
You said he was good for Vermont. You said you agreed with everything he said. What am i missing here?

So if Vermonters support the killing of our children thats perfectly OK with you?
 
max37 said:
Oh yes - it was the one two punch with Thatcher and Regan and everyone believing that they were doing good.

100 years from now, (IF WE’RE LUCKY) historians will credit those two for handing over power from govenrments to global corporations - trashing middle and lower classes and bringing a big smile to the fallen angels! (just my opinion on that last theoligical part, but really, serve God or serve mammon as they say)
Click to expand...
Ah yes-we need to go back to the gold old days when Carter was President. Everyone was better off then…
 
Richardols said:
Given that Mike and I don’t vote in Vermont, and haven’t sent him any money nor tried to get out the vote for him, I fail to see how we are supporting him.
Click to expand...
Indeed. So far I agree with his definition of ‘socialist’ and like the issues on his ‘issues’ page. And, err, that’s it.

Mike
 
max37 said:
Oh yes - it was the one two punch with Thatcher and Regan and everyone believing that they were doing good.
Click to expand...
I’d be careful of your use of ‘everyone’ 🙂 We were in no doubt in Liverpool of the damage Thatcher was doing us.
100 years from now, (IF WE’RE LUCKY) historians will credit those two for handing over power from govenrments to global corporations - trashing middle and lower classes and bringing a big smile to the fallen angels! (just my opinion on that last theoligical part, but really, serve God or serve mammon as they say)
Click to expand...
‘They’ may say it, but I don’t see many conservative Christians saying it, I’m sorry to say. The most vocal seem to miss those parts of the Gospel altogether - even our ‘socialist’ leader Tony Blair 😦

Mike
 
b_justb said:
What is Bernie’s def of Socialist?
Click to expand...
He said in the article. I posted it somewhere in this thread already, but I’ll do it again…
“Twenty years ago when people here thought about socialism they were thinking about the Soviet Union, about Albania,” Mr Sanders told the Guardian in a telephone interview from the campaign trail. “Now they think about Scandinavia. In Vermont people understand I’m talking about democratic socialism.”
Click to expand...
Mike
 
estesbob said:
You said he was good for Vermont.
Click to expand...
I did not. Point out the post where I said that he was good for Vermont.
You said you agreed with everything he said.
Click to expand...
I did not. Point to the post where I said that I agreed with everything he said.

I did say that it was up to Vermonters to choose or reject him.
What am i missing here?
Click to expand...
How to read a post.
 
estesbob said:
Post #2
Click to expand...
Good for Vermont! It’s in keeping with the spirit of that very independent people in the Green Mountain State.

Err… saying “Good for Vermont!” is a hurrah for the state, not the same as a hurrah for the man.
 
estesbob said:
Post #35
Click to expand...
“The same here.”

In response to Mike WM’s post “I’m not sure I’ve seen a word I disagree with.”

Err…Saying that one isn’t sure that one has seen anything to disagree with isn’t the same as saying that one agrees with everything another says.

Perhaps he has said elsewhere that he favors reintroducing slavery into America. Saying that I can’t disagree with what I’ve seen doesn’t mean that I agree with reintroducing slavery, part of his platform which I hadn’t seen.

Please read posts with some aim of understanding them. I have the sense that you already have a response prepared to use regardless what the other poster posts.
 
b_justb said:
I think that no matter what one thinks Socialism means it has its root meaning in the forced redistribution of wealth by the State.
Click to expand...
You mean like when the government seized my parents farm, burned their home to the ground and parceled the land off to developers to make some fast cash?

That kind of forced redistribution?

It’s perfectly legal.

The government is your Friend - and the President will help you every bit as much as he assisted our sister in Christ in Florida last year.

Welcome to los Etados Unidos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top