Bernie Sanders 30 years of a consistent message

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gumerk

No, 'democratic socialism' is about giving all power to the state while claiming it will be for the good of the people... Same old claims, with the same old results.

Where in Bernie's policies or history do you find him wanting to give all power to the state if elected as POTUS?


Democratic Socialists of America --

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs.

We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.

Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The difference is you learnt about socialism/communism from a liberal dictionary

HAHAHA,,, that is such a great example of why I can't take you seriously.

The definitions do not change because of your point of view.

Liberal dictionary that's a good one.LMAO

And Bernie just pulled ahead in Iowa! #FeelTheBern!

New Poll: Bernie pulls ahead in Iowa

a reply to: Gumerk

How is "Weekend with feeling the Beurnie" going to eliminate government corruption?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

Wait, it's the state now? I thought you hated the Federal government and wanted the States to get more of their power back?

First of all, i don't "hate" the federal government...

Second of all, when you talk about "state" unless it is specified you are talking about government in general.

You need to understand the context in which the word "state" is used instead of trying to claim things the poster didn't write...

a reply to: Gumerk

When did all "social democrats" of the past ever said that they wanted to give all power to the state? Instead they wanted to give power to the people, but the contrary happens.

Bernie talks the talk, like always, but as always they never walk the walk.

i am not in favor of corporations having all power, but neither am i in favor of "state having all power which claims to do it for the people".

Bernie seems to flip-flop quite a bit.

Election 2016: Bernie Sanders’ Conflicting Policies; Guns, Energy, Defense, Immigration Views Draw Scrutiny

originally posted by: Grimpachi

HAHAHA,,, that is such a great example of why I can't take you seriously.

The definitions do not change because of your point of view.

Liberal dictionary that's a good one.LMAO

i have never taken you seriously, so don't feel left out.

BTW, yes, there are liberal dictionaries, and there are conservative dictionaries.

Liberal dictionaries tend to try to "re-write history", conservative dictionaries on the other hand show how such definitions have always been known.

The fact that you don't even know this tells a lot about your knowledge of this type of topic.

Bernie Sanders, along with all the other socialists and centralized planners lacks a rational method for calculating the relative scarcity of economic resources. Oh, and socialism is the devil. Good luck at the polls, Trump's going to win because of you truly reprehensible people. Better him than Hillary or Bernie, but you liberals sicken me.

originally posted by: JamesCookieIII
Bernie Sanders, along with all the other socialists and centralized planners lacks a rational method for calculating the relative scarcity of economic resources. Oh, and socialism is the devil. Good luck at the polls, Trump's going to win because of you truly reprehensible people. Better him than Hillary or Bernie, but you liberals sicken me. You force conservatives to vote for people like Trump because you won't allow real debates with people like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Why is Soros freaking out if the economy is good? Because its all lies you idiots.

One has to wonder...
If Bernie is exactly what this country needs. Then why has it taken 30 years for him to gain any recognition?
Wonder how many Bernie supporters even knew of the man before 2015.
Maybe it's just the libertarian in me...
But I feel we are being manipulated.
AGAIN...

a reply to: JAY1980

I actually wish that Ron Paul was still running for President. This would be a good time for someone like him to run for President.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Why do you think we'd cut off white males from free public education?

Gee, I don't know...

Maybe a lifetime of being discriminated against in employment and education (scholarships, specifically) due to Affirmative Action?

Being discriminated against in family court because I'm male?

It's off-topic, but I can keep going in PM if you'd like. Though somehow I think you'll just accuse me of whining about lost privileges I never had or something.

But who knows.

Yeah, you're right that you "don't know". Affirmative Action programs were put in place because it used to be legal for governments, schools, and businesses to discriminate based on race, gender, and a host of other things (aka, systematic discrimination). You know, like "Jim Crow laws", the "good ole boy network", and all.

Affirmative Action programs simply forced these institutions to allow other demographics in. It doesn't do crap after that, as the recipients still have to fulfill the other requirements of that position. It's literally like one demographic having 100% ownership of something, then complaining when they have to share any of it with others. And for the record, white women are the largest recipients of affirmative action programs. In fact, white people in general are eligible for "minority scholarships" at HBCUs. So your argument fails there, too.

But you also didn't answer how socialists pushing for free public education would translate into us barring white males from that free public education. (and don't bother sending a pm b/c i won't read it. if you have something to say, say it here for everyone to see it)

a reply to: Gumerk

The confusion is because many people still think socialism and communism are the same. So they basically think Bernie's trying to recreate Mao or Stalin's policies (which is ironic because I don't think they'll actually studied either of them, either).

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Yeah, you're right that you "don't know". Affirmative Action programs were put in place because it used to be legal for governments, schools, and businesses to discriminate based on race, gender, and a host of other things (aka, systematic discrimination). You know, like "Jim Crow laws", the "good ole boy network", and all.

Affirmative Action programs simply forced these institutions to allow other demographics in. It doesn't do crap after that, as the recipients still have to fulfill the other requirements of that position. It's literally like one demographic having 100% ownership of something, then complaining when they have to share any of it with others. And for the record, white women are the largest recipients of affirmative action programs. In fact, white people in general are eligible for "minority scholarships" at HBCUs. So your argument fails there, too.

Are you telling me my own personal experiences didn't happen?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

The confusion is because many people still think socialism and communism are the same. So they basically think Bernie's trying to recreate Mao or Stalin's policies (which is ironic because I don't think they'll actually studied either of them, either).

No confusion. It is the knowledge that socialism, or "state control" leads to authoritarian regimes.

Even Marx stated that socialism was but a stage to lead capitalist nations into communism. Communism is the final goal. All socialist are not communists, but all communists are socialists.

Socialism leads to one branch of government having all power, even when claiming it does so for the people".

After all the fight that "Gandhi" did for the people of India, what did it do for India? Even after India became a socialist state, it still oppresses the people and gives all power to the state/elite.

Throughout his 30 year political career Bernie has flip-flopped all over the place in his stance in policies. Does that say that he stands for what he believes? or that he would just spout what he wants people to believe?

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Yeah, you're right that you "don't know". Affirmative Action programs were put in place because it used to be legal for governments, schools, and businesses to discriminate based on race, gender, and a host of other things (aka, systematic discrimination). You know, like "Jim Crow laws", the "good ole boy network", and all.

Affirmative Action programs simply forced these institutions to allow other demographics in. It doesn't do crap after that, as the recipients still have to fulfill the other requirements of that position. It's literally like one demographic having 100% ownership of something, then complaining when they have to share any of it with others. And for the record, white women are the largest recipients of affirmative action programs. In fact, white people in general are eligible for "minority scholarships" at HBCUs. So your argument fails there, too.

Are you telling me my own personal experiences didn't happen?

No, I'm saying one person's experiences don't account for everyone's experiences. As an example, the first time white people called me racial slurs was in 2nd grade when I moved to a little town in Tennessee. I got in fights every year because of the racial slurs until I moved to a bigger city in 7th grade. Then I had non-black teachers, principals, and guidance counselors tell me to be "realistic" and lower my expectations in life, even though I was in gifted classes, honors classes, and then AP classes. I've had police called on me for the simplest things (like walking w/my Mom at a public park) & I get pulled over for extra security checks at the airport.

Yet I've never once blamed all white people or even a majority of white people for this. I treat every individual as an individual and give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason not too. So even if you've had crappy situations in your life; join the club. Everyone's been screwed over at some time, by friends, family, strangers, employers, customers or sellers, etc.

(Though I have to note, I'm a bigot against bigotry. I'm completely intolerant of bigots, and if an entire organization calls for racist or bigoted actions, I'll label the entire organization that way, even though the individuals may be from different demographics. But at least I'm honest about that .)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, nor am I comparing my experiences to anyone else's. I just don't want the situation to get any worse than it already is, and the statist "left" (how I abhor the paradigm, but nonetheless) has an established track record of instituting policies that directly inhibit the ability of "people like me" to fully employ our talents and pursue our own happiness.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In other words, since socialism isn't perfect, we can't accept its positive traits? If that's the criteria, then why does capitalism get a pass? It's far from perfect and its periodic crashes can destroy generations of wealth. If you've noticed, most actual socialists call for a mixture of socialism and capitalism. I've even mentioned on ATS that I believe we should nationalize the "needs" of the public while allowing capitalism for the "wants". I think that would be the perfect mix (sorry, don't feel like going into detail on it right now).

Also, I think you're missing something about socialism and Marx. Humans have had "socialist" societies long before Marx and Engels were born. The basic concept of most indigenous communities and many civilizations throughout time was that everyone chipped in to help the community prosper, while each qualifying community member gained benefits from each success. Even the Essenes had communities that would be considered "socialist" today. In other words, Marx and Engels didn't create the idea of people working together to minimize risks and increase the access to rewards. That would be like thinking they created the concept of "teams", even though humankind's social behavior is what allowed us to come this far in the first place lol.

In fact, though I first got my copy of "The Communist Manifesto" when I was in high school, I rejected it and had a raving vulture capitalist's outlook. I didn't start accepting the "sharing the resources in a community" mentality until years later, both for religious reasons and because of my increased desire to help others. In other words, me becoming a "socialist" has nothing to do with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao. In fact, I'd guess that many socialists care more about the basic concepts like "production based on community needs" and "sharing the gains with the entire community" than they do the differences in communism and socialism.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, nor am I comparing my experiences to anyone else's. I just don't want the situation to get any worse than it already is, and the statist "left" (how I abhor the paradigm, but nonetheless) has an established track record of instituting policies that directly inhibit the ability of "people like me" to fully employ our talents and pursue our own happiness.

Sorry you feel that way, but you've got to share the world with the rest of us. God willing, the time of one group or demographic controlling the world is over. I don't think you meant it in a bad way, but everyone deserves a chance to better themselves. Though my "everyone" includes you. So I don't understand why you'd be against policies that would help you just as much as they'd help everyone else.

And for the record, the "left" is no more unified than the "right" is. There are numerous viewpoints and conflicting ideas on the "left" just as there are on the "right". No group or individual can speak for all progressives anymore than one group or individual can speak for all conservatives. I'm saying that because you seem to be falling into the trap that all "people on the left" are somehow against white males like yourself, even though there are plenty of white males on the "left" who both encourage left wing policies and benefit from them. That seems like a contradiction with your statements.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

This is one of the problems. Socialists in all branches of "socialism" believe that the government has to control all means of production. Hence the individual cannot own anything that can earn him/her a living.

Pair that with the fact that socialists believe in the government controlling healthcare, education, and even capitalism; this leads to each and every individual that is not in a seat of power in the state cannot have any control over the education of their children, their healthcare, or their entrepreneur ideas unless they are controlled by the state.

This always leads to authoritarian left-wing governments.

Since when being "pro-capitalist" ever stopped anyone from helping others? People can only help others when the needs of their family and themselves are met.

Authoritarian regimes always came to power "for the good of the collective".

You can reject, or think that you reject socialism like Marx and Engels envisioned it. But the fact is you still believe the collective is more important than individual rights. But you fail to understand that without individual rights, the people/collective (which is made up of individuals) cannot have any form of power themselves. Instead all power is delegated to one branch of the government and the people in control, which implements "authoritarianism for the good of the collective without the consent of the individuals that make up such collective".

Proclaiming that it is "for the good of the people", doesn't mean it will do so.