Could somebody please explain to me the attraction he's getting? Honestly, once he says he's a socialist, I shut him down as far as a legitimate politician, but can those who are identifying with him explain the attraction to me?
Judging from the Cliff Notes versions of his speeches, I just can't fathom anybody taking him seriously.
I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely curious as to what he's bringing to the table that has so many excited. Is he the left's answer to Trump, somebody who's not really going to have a chance at winning, but is saying what a lot of people believe and getting them riled up since no other "serious" politician would say it? Or is there more?
Originally posted by StaggerLeeCould somebody please explain to me the attraction he's getting? Honestly, once he says he's a socialist, I shut him down as far as a legitimate politician, but can those who are identifying with him explain the attraction to me?
I'm only someone following the American election as us Canadians have our own election to worry about (on Monday!)
EDIT: clicked "post" when I meant to click "close this window, I really don't have anything to say after all"
ANYWAY, since I'm here, what I've heard of his stuff just sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then again, up here, "socialist" just isn't the dirty word that it is in America. I'll let the more informed (and eligible) voters go into detail.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeIs he the left's answer to Trump, somebody who's not really going to have a chance at winning
Despite their disparate opinions on practically everything, I see a lot of similarity for the Bern movement with what I and other folks experienced as a part of Ron Paul's thing in '12 and '08, and I expect their movement will ultimately experience fulitity similar to ours. Good on 'em, though, if they actually get the kids to vote...we sure didn't.*
A lot of Sanders' appeal to some Democratic voters is simply that he's Not Hillary Clinton. If he was younger and didn't have the socialist baggage, he would absolutely have a strong chance to take the nomination away from her as Obama did in 2008.
However, even the general Clinton fatigue won't hurt her in winning the nomination or likely the election, given what a complete clown show the Republican side has become.
George Michael weighed his options. Maeby had chastised him for not taking risks, and what would be a bigger risk than perpetuating a lie about software just to ignite the passions of a woman? Of course it would be a lie, and since Maeby wouldn't know it was a lie, he wouldn't appear to be taking a risk. Perhaps the bigger risk was to tell his father he was lying, that he came up with it because he wanted his father to leave so he could enjoy what remained of his senior year. After all, he wondered, wouldn't that be the course of action taken by an overtly sexual man, a man who owns a pair of matador pants? He had not responded now for 41 seconds according to his unfailing internal clock, and it was time to come clean.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeHonestly, once he says he's a socialist, I shut him down as far as a legitimate politician
Well, that's the thing. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and yes, Canada, have for a long time embraced to varying degrees the kind of things that Bernie is proposing. Nobody looks at Canada or Sweden and says that they're third world hellholes, or that they have dysfunctional governments. And yet, when someone in the United States proposes a government more like those, there's a lot of people who will simply shut him down as you mention you're doing. So why do you immediately do that?
Being a 'socialist' is not a dirty word, despite what you might have been conditioned to believe. It's not like being a fascist or a communist. There are things in the United States that you take for granted that are very much socialist in nature. Your fire and police departments, government-funded medical care for your military, those are socialist apparatuses in action. They're accepted without complaint, because you're used to them. Bernie Sanders wants to expand that, to try to bring in other such things that have worked in other countries. Can it work? I don't know. But simply having someone like Sanders stepping up and saying "I'm a socialist" and not being laughed off is progress.
The critics will point to countries like Venezuela for their "socialism can't work" arguments. Personally, I think the United States is more comparable to a country like Canada than a country like Venezuela, so unless you think that I'm off in that line of thinking, I wouldn't put much faith in the critics if that's the best line they can muster.
Well, when you mention fire/police forces, those are locally funded and not nationally funded (for the most part,DOJ grants notwithstanding). As for the healthcare for the military, well, the military is authorized and funded by congress, so the "socialism" of them taking care of their service members is a non issue really. On the other hand, if you want to see how great government run health care is, make a visit to your local VA hospital.
When I look at his stance on issues, I just think it's totally irresponsible to think a country as large and complicated as ours can effectively manage itself with the things he's proposing(financially).
When I look at his site and see these as the issues, some are not the function of the federal government, some are not actual problems, and some just seem like pure pandering, which to be honest, is what ALL politicians do.
INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY (not the government's job to 'fix' even though I don't see that there is actually a legitimate issue here) IT’S TIME TO MAKE COLLEGE TUITION FREE AND DEBT FREE (except, you know, how do you finance it? Econ 101 tells us "there's no such thing as a free lunch". ) GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS ( I am all for this, but realistic enough to know it will never happen) CREATING DECENT PAYING JOBS (the only jobs government can create are government jobs, if you tax the people who have the money to start businesses that CAN afford to pay decent wages to the extent he's proposing, they won't have that money anymore) A LIVING WAGE (Living wage= having a job that is valued enough to pay it, burger flipping, stocking shelves, etc are not important enough to warrant the same pay as a teacher or other professionals) CLIMATE CHANGE & ENVIRONMENT (a long argument, funded by anti oil and oil companies, and the billions we've 'invested' hasn't provided an ounce of improvement) RACIAL JUSTICE (there IS an issue of the opportunities lacking causing minorities to be more likely to be caught breaking laws, but it's not a justice issue, it's an education and economy one) A FAIR AND HUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY (we have a fair and humane immigration policy, if you bother to follow the law) FIGHTING FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS (what rights are women not granted that men are? Pandering) FIGHTING FOR LGBT EQUALITY (Agreed, make them equal. This is a non issue as far as I am concerned, meaning that I don't see why the bigots in the country have any rational reason to try to deny the rights and protections that straights enjoy) CARING FOR OUR VETERANS (The only thing he's mentioned so far on the list I am 100% supportive and enthusiastic about) STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND SOCIAL SECURITY (easy fix, stop stealing money from it, and allow people to go private with their funds) FIGHTING TO LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES (Agree 100%) REFORMING WALL STREET (Agreed 100%) REAL FAMILY VALUES (define "real". Everybody's family is different, but SOME actual values would be nice) WAR AND PEACE (Go to war as a last resort, but on the same hand, don't let people mistake peace as a sign we cannot/will not fight) WAR SHOULD BE THE LAST OPTION: WHY I SUPPORT THE IRAN DEAL (This should be the leading reason to disqualify him)
SO, looking at his big issues he's addressed, I see only a very few things he's supporting that I would support as well, and they are all actually already the responsibility of the government as it stands now.
I don't think CRZ wants people to get into political arguments here, so I'm not going to try to debate those points. But you took the time to look past the label and analyze his positions, and that's good. That's a lot better than just saying "He's a socialist? Not worth my time".
From the Canadian perspective, I will note that in Canada 'big money' has been taken out of our politics. Only individuals may donate to political parties, and those donations are capped at a pretty low amount. That's a reasonably new thing in Canada as well, passed shortly after 2000. It would be nice for the same thing to be able to happen in the United States, too, and even if you don't agree with all of Bernie's stances, bringing attention to ones like that is a good start to getting past the "realistically, this will never happen" attitude.
Socialist Canada has a balanced budget, too. Of course, in our ongoing election campaign that will resolve next week, the current front-running party is running on an election promise to deliberately run deficits for several years, in contrast to the other parties that are promising continued balanced budgets. So yeah, there's just some outright different approaches between the countries. We have a balanced budget and parties earn favour by pledging to run deficits, you have a huge deficit and parties earn favour by pledging to cut it (even if, post-Clinton, they've always failed).
Our hard on for war tends to be the primary cause of our deficit. Canada, Norway and the such don't spend that much. Honestly, its us, China and Russia who spend a ton of cash on the military and no one here feels safe. Like no one.
I will probably vote Bernie, because I don't think Hillary can win. Trump will eventually go into one of these debates and someone is going to punch the bully, probably Paul. Then comes the long hard winter where his flash in the pan tactics will eventually lead to losing momentum. Eventually Rubio or Bush is going to come through. If its Rubio, he has a lock on Florida and the South. That alone makes him a threat. He will just beat Hillary on being old and after defeating Trump, the media will make him the Chosen One like they did with Obama.
Bernie being a socialist is a bad thing, but no one wants say out loud, we are a partial socialist country. Social Security, the police and Medicare are prime examples. People are also now more leery than ever of Capitalism. The Banks got bailed out due to being too big to fail yet no one seem to do anything to save Main Street besides offer bonuses to new home owners and to refinance to really save the banks.
Bernie is tapping into that mistrust from the liberal side on that. He is also talking about saving programs instead of cutting them in half. If he was younger, he would probably be ahead.
If someone can explain the appeal of any of the GOP candidates besides blatant racism and fear of our Muslim Commie President. I would appreciate it. Paul is probably the least despicable of the group, but being anti-military in the GOP is a death sentence.
Why do people always cite Police when talking about socialism?
Police forces are LOCAL. They are not FEDERAL services.
Chumpstain, I appreciate not arguing about my views. I just wanted to point out what I felt about his policies. Don't want an argument either.
lotjx, your question about the GOP candidates is humorous. Exactly what do you mean by blatant racism?
I don't really like ANY of the GOP candidates, and I don't really think any of them are great candidates, but I certainly would not vote for any of the Dem candidates. I don't see a Libertarian coming along who could make any dent in the elections either.
It's been explained well enough. I would caution that labels have changed so much that for old timers like me at least, they are worthless. While he may be a socialist in today's vernacular, what he espouses if said 40 years ago, much of it, would have been pretty mainstream. As far as people reacting positively to him, it's IMO about income inequality and people's fears for the future re healthcare and education. Except for maybe Kasich and Bush, a conservative form 50 years ago wouldn't recognize much of it as being conservative.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeWhy do people always cite Police when talking about socialism?
Police forces are LOCAL. They are not FEDERAL services.
What Peter says above.
In Canada, health care is overseen and provided by the provinces/territories. It's not a federal service either. That doesn't mean it's not a socialist construct.
The capitalist version of a police force is private security. People would be responsible for their own safety by hiring security as needed, and people who didn't do so would hope to avoid suffering the consequences. Of course, society has decided that such a solution is not acceptable, and it's become the duty of government, be it local, state/provincial or federal, to fund police using tax income for the betterment of all. That's socialism in action. The government is doing something the private sector could theoretically do, because they'll offer it more fairly for the benefit of all citizens. You just don't see capitalist 'for profit' police forces or fire departments in countries.
Other countries have gone beyond that. In Canada, we don't have 'for profit' health care. Our doctors and nurses get paid a similar amount as American ones, but by cutting out the middleman, the health insurance companies that exist to try to profit off of illness and injury, we cut costs overall and provide services to those who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. In my province, the same is true for car insurance. It's mandatory for those who wish to drive, it's run by the government, and it isn't 'for profit'. I pay less for my insurance than most others do here because I have a squeaky clean record. People who have bad records or drive vehicles that are at higher risk pay more. And at the end of the year, if more money is taken in than needs to be paid out for injuries/repairs/etc., I along with everyone else get the extra money back as a refund. It can go farther than that, of course. Norway has a nationalized/socialized energy sector, which means their offshore oil wells are owned and run by the government. This has in past years contributed billions of dollars of budget surplus to be added to a rainy day fund.
Just because things can work in Canada or Scandinavia is no guarantee they'd work in the United States. But at the same time, Americans shouldn't immediately brush these things off without even considering them just because they've been conditioned to think of Cuba, Venezuela or the Soviet Union when the word 'socialist' is mentioned. That's like the old left-wing retort of claiming that the ultimate small-government Libertarian paradise is Somalia.
Originally posted by StaggerLeelotjx, your question about the GOP candidates is humorous. Exactly what do you mean by blatant racism?
I'm guessing he's referring to Trump in particular, who's made hay of beating up on brown people. So much so that there's been people actually shouting out "white power!" at his rallies and Trump doesn't have the political sense (which is part of his appeal, so he ain't changing that) to disassociate himself from them. Or those two drunks in Boston who beat the piss out of a Hispanic man, pissed on him, then praised Trump... who proceeded to praise their spirit before finally getting around to saying that you shouldn't beat people up just because you think they're here illegally.
You wanted the best, you got... the Out of Context Quote of the Week.
"I got the email that my sub rubs out in a month..." (thecubsfan)
Those punished in the Nuremberg trials were punished for committing acts illegal according to customary international law. When people question whether invading Iran (or whatever) is "illegal" that could mean multiple things.