It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can anyone give me a real reason Bernie is bad for America?

page: 17
37
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Really? Were you also one of the people who voted for Obama and "believed" all his lies?... Were you still believing in him when Ron Paul and I think 3 more Senators decided to audit the Fed after Obama came out saying they had lost trillions of dollars, and didn't know where the money went?

When Paul and the other Senators investigated this they found that from December 2007 -2010 the Feds had "lost" $16 trillion of taxpayer U.S.D and had been sent to other "central banks" and corporations in other nations.

Remember that it was PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS who in 1913 implemented and gave the power over the U.S. economy to the Federal Reserve, and they also changed the IRS to the "progressive never ending taxes" that exist to this day. But you are claiming that more of the same socialist policies will solve the problems?...

Yes, i know that Sanders was one of the other senators who audited the Fed, but it was ideas of "more socialism" which caused the problem in the first place. A central bank is one of the planks in socialism, and in communism. Most of the founders of the U.S. were against a central bank, and knew once one was implemented it would be the end of the nation.




edit on 2-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

No, people just need to learn how to properly apply labels. If a person does not adhere to socialist principles in the strictest of senses, that person is not a true socialist.

You are referring to 'Responsible capitalism', which has nothing to do with socialism in any form. The hallmark of socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, socialism is an economic system, not a political system.

I have heard the term 'democratic socialist' thrown around. Which is basically the idea of a democracy, which includes the state ownership of the means of production. The people are supposedly the 'State', but we know that is never true in any democracy, and that 'State' owns the means of production.

We can also look at the term 'social democracy', which is simply the creation of a socialist state through democratic means.

However, people will obfuscate the term of socialism, to play on the emotions of the feeble-minded in an attempt to seize control over the state's monopoly on violence.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

When people claim socialism is only an economic system they are showing not to understand what it is. Socialism isn't just an economic system. It is also a political system.

As for "social democracy"... Venezuela is an example of one of the latest "social democracies" implemented, in which socialism was the goal. But Chavez and the Chavistas were not simply socialist, they were/are Marxists.

But Venezuela is doing great right? After all, since the "rationing system" was implemented, which all socialist systems implement, Venezuelans are going hungry, they fight over the last food products, or other basic products in supermarkets meanwhile tons and tons of food were rotting in government warehouses... Crime has surged to levels not seen before, police corruption is more rampant, and political opponents are threatened, or worse. You want to know where Bernie's ideas will lead the U.S.? Look at Venezuela and that's the answer.


edit on 2-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor you are wrong all around. First off, socialism is WORKERS own the means of production, that's the classic origin, and without that there is NO socialism.


Second off, I saw exactly what Obama was. I noted to everyone that he was going to get elected long before November, and I also noted to them that he was a pure corporatist and would do nothing that he promised. Even I didn't realize he would do the exact opposite of every single promise. I was for ron paul then. I am not a progressive democrat. I am considered left wing by my friends and associates, and I am I suppose, but not in any way that resembles the democratic party of the US. I more left wing in the way the rest of the worlds centrists are.

and it wasn't Paul who decided to audit.....it was Elizabeth warren who had been pushing it for some time. I'm hoping Sanders takes her for his running mate. I would also vote for her if she ever ran. Your ideas are 1)hyperbole, and 2)ludicrous.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How true, fortunately I have a hard copy of the Manifesto. Here is the list for anyone unfamiliar,

" 1. Abolition of property in land application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capitol and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c. "

-- The Communist Manifesto, K. Marx



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse Sigh. You really are off. Why is Venezuela in the position it is in? The same reason, I would imagine, that iran, Libya, and cuba are. What position is a nation supposed to be in, socialist or capitalist, conservative, or liberal, when the most powerful nation in the world is doing all it can to disrupt their function, from buying uprisings, to attempted assassinations, to coups, to economic and environmental sabotage? Our actions as far as doing each and every one of these things is well documented in each of those nations. And then we blame their failures on their economic and political systems. Give me a break. Its like kicking a guy whose muslim in the knee and proclaiming "see what being muslim gives you? A broken leg!"



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor Ah! communism. Of course. I thought we were talking about socialism here, my bad. Look guys! another person who cant tell the difference between communism and socialism! Will wonders never cease, what wont they think of next.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: GodEmperor you are wrong all around. First off, socialism is WORKERS own the means of production, that's the classic origin, and without that there is NO socialism.


Really?... How do you reconcile the fact that under socialism people cannot own the means of production with the claim that "the worker owns the means of production?...

How do you reconcile the fact that socialism gives the control of the means of production to the state with the claim that the workers own the means of production?...



originally posted by: pexx421
and it wasn't Paul who decided to audit.....it was Elizabeth warren who had been pushing it for some time. I'm hoping Sanders takes her for his running mate. I would also vote for her if she ever ran. Your ideas are 1)hyperbole, and 2)ludicrous.




...
About Audit the Fed Legislation

Legislation to Audit the Federal Reserve is supported by nearly 75 percent of the American people.

In the 114th Congress, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced “Audit the Fed” (H.R.24) on January 6th, 2015 with 63 original cosponsors. On January 27, Senator Rand Paul introduced the senate companion, S. 264, with 30 bipartisan cosponsors. The legislation calls for a “full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States.”

In the past, Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill, H.R. 1207, gained 320 cosponsors and passed the House as an amendment to the Dodd/Frank "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act," before being stripped out in the Senate and replaced by a limited, one-time audit of the Fed's emergency lending operations during the financial crisis. Later, Audit the Fed was reintroduced in 2011 as H.R. 459, gained 274 cosponsors, and passed the House of Representatives in the 112th Congress on July 25, 2012, by an overwhelming three-fourths majority of 327-98 after a nationwide grassroots mobilization effort led by Campaign for Liberty.

After Ron Paul's retirement from Congress, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) reintroduced Dr. Paul’s Audit the Fed bill as H.R 24, “The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013,” in the 113th Congress. The bill, which was cosponsored by 224 Representatives, passed the House of Representatives on September 17, 2014, by a vote of 333-92, with a majority of Democrats voting in favor of the bill.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced companion legislation in both the 112th and 113th Congresses, which gained 37 and 32 cosponsors, respectively. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow Audit the Fed to be brought to the floor, in either Congress, for a vote, despite repeatedly calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve throughout his career.
...

www.campaignforliberty.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Oh right, you are referring to this quote from the Manifesto:

" We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. "

Yes, so according to you the State owns the means of production, but the State is 'the people'. So who will be in charge of this 'state', it would seem pretty chaotic if every single person had equal control. We'll need a manager of sorts, some charismatic leader, maybe a Lenin, a Mao, or how about a Sanders?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

You obviously do not understand.

Socialism is the transitional system, towards the goal of communism.

Communism is where there is no State, the State does not exist, because people live happily together and do not require a State to mandate what they are to do.

Socialism, is the 'communist revolution', while communism is the end result.

Here is another quote from the Manifesto:

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. "
edit on 2-2-2016 by GodEmperor because: typo



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

LOL... it's always the same claim... When the "socialist state" fails every time the people, it is not the system that is at fault... Instead socialists claim "it is those evil imperialists/capitalists"... It was the Chavista government which implemented rationing and price regulations. While claiming, like you are doing right now, that "it was the capitalists' fault", meanwhile tons of food were rotting in GOVERNMENT warehouses, and Venezuelans were going hungry...


By Tom Blumer | June 22, 2010 | 12:15 PM EDT
...
Critics accuse him of steering the country toward a communist dictatorship and say he is destroying the private sector.

They point to 80,000 tons of rotting food found in warehouses belonging to the government as evidence the state is a poor and corrupt administrator.

Jose Guzman, an assistant manager at a store raided in Catia, watched with resignation as government agents pored over the company's accounts and computers after the food ministry official and the television cameras left.

"The government is pushing this type of establishment toward bankruptcy," said Guzman, who linked the raid to the rotten food scandal. "Somehow they have to replace all the food that was lost, and this is the most expeditious way."
...

Revolutionary Rot, But News It's Not: AP Ignores Venezuela's 'Battle for Food'

Just like in Cuba, Venezuela's problems are because of socialism...





edit on 2-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

I'm with you 100% on seeing through Obama, I mean c'mon, first black man to get into the oval office has got to be in servitude to a number of special interests. Then you remind yourself that he's from Chicago arguably one of the most corrupt cities in America, in addition to the whole thing with someone trying to sell his vacated seat. And finally his selection of Timothy Geithner mentee of infamous Paul Volcker famously know for creating the event affectionately known as Volcker's Syndrome it was game over at that point. To this day I still don't understand how people still believe or defend the guy. He is a good liar though, something about the cadence of his speech. DEEP DISH!



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.

www.marxmail.org...

We cannot talk about socialism, without talking about communism, because socialism is the vehicle in which communism is created. It is disingenuous to claim that you want socialism, but not communism, because the end goal is to transform a capitalist society into a communist one, the important stage towards that goal is socialism.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
...
We cannot talk about socialism, without talking about communism, because socialism is the vehicle in which communism is created. It is disingenuous to claim that you want socialism, but not communism, because the end goal is to transform a capitalist society into a communist one, the important stage towards that goal is socialism.


That's another fact socialists will never admit. Once socialism is implemented in a nation, it leaves an open door to communism. The only way that socialists can stop communists, or other socialists from taking over the state is to do what the "socialist" Hitler did.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Exactly!

It isn't difficult to do a little research, but in most cases political ideologues will neglect any truths that do not fit their political narrative.

Socialism is commonly regarded as an economic system that seeks to achieve equality among members of society. Communism, on the other hand, is both an economic system that seeks equality among members of society and a political ideology that advocates a classless and stateless society and rejects religion. It is regarded as a more extreme form of socialism.
Difference between socialism and communism



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor socialism existed before communism. Just because the manifesto claims it as part of the "natural progression" means nothing. The communist manifesto is far from a scientific study, so I don't know why people feel the need to source it as their proof that socialism leads to communism. According to me the state does NOT own the means of production in socialism. Its the idea that all workers have a stake in the business they work in or the work they do.....let me make it very clear for you here. When they say the worker owns the means of production, what they mean more than anything else, is that the worker gets paid for EXACTLY THE AMOUNT that his productivity contributes, rather than some shareholder or middle man skimming off the cream between the worker and the purchaser. I don't really understand why 1) that is so hard to understand, or 2) the idea of a man (or woman) taking the total profit generated by their contribution is so repugnant to folks.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I feel we are on an entirely different thread topic now - Debating socialism vs communism, going over political ideologies that Bernie Sanders does not represent in the first place.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor dear god. please you two. There have been, what, 2 countries, in history (ok, maybe 3) that even CLAIMED to be communist. So, in these 2 out of thousands you guys now think that all socialism leads to communism, and that any social programs are socialist, therefore any nations having social programs are on the path to communism. Big tip here guys, too much communism is not the worlds problem.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

You still do not understand.

Socialism is the idea that attempts to progress a capitalist society into a communist society. In reality, the state gains total control, the worker does not gain control, and the end result is that of a scientific dictatorship; instead of a stateless society. It would be silly to believe that socialism leads to a stateless society, but the fact remains socialism is a transitional system, not an end result.

Also, I am not particularly interested in ambiguous terms that vary from person to person, especially when those terms already have concrete definitions that are universally accepted.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

You're right,

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.

Bernie Sanders is an idealist, which is a very dangerous person to give the power of president to.

It's a very sad situation, this election. The other democrat to choose is an opportunist, as are every single republican candidate, except for maybe Cruz, who closely resembles a religious zealot.

Any way you look at it, giving your authority to make decisions to another person, is downright despicable. The goals you want for the country, should be done yourself, not expect someone else to do it for you.




top topics



 
37
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join