Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: amicktd

Most conservatives that attack Bernie as a Socialist is all they have as an attack anyways, so if other Bernie supporters are anything like me their opinion usually falls on deaf ears.

Attacking a politician for his policies... that's unheard of. You might also notice Conservatives avoid attacking people's character. We'll leave that for other political affiliations.

I don't know what your getting at?

a reply to: xuenchen

Let's see how many Cruz supporters know the term Theocrat.

Let's see how many Americans can even define capitalism very well...

He's not running as a socialist, he's running as a democrat. What are you one of the winged monkey minions? Get someone to describe democrat? Or republican?

a reply to: xuenchen

Three people in a 'man on the street' style ambush interview said: "I don't know". You decide to make a thread saying Bernie supporters can't describe Socialism. Circle jerk ensues, no anti-Socialist bothers to ask how long the original clip was or if they were at the Town Hall for Bernie, Hillary or O'Malley

ETA: Not to mention that maybe the reporter should have asked Bernie supporters what Democratic Socialism is, since that's what Bernie Describes himself as. Which is not the same as Socialism, no matter how many times you cry about it.

Okay this is easy:

"Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism"

That's because what his supporters want ... isn't really socialism.

There you go.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Okay this is easy:

"Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism"

That's because what his supporters want ... isn't really socialism.

There you go.

Correct, they want more invasive socioeconomic interventionism.

But, whether they realize it or not, it pushes us further toward inevitable socialism.

a reply to: greencmp

The first time two cave men decided to work together on something, or share something we began moving that direction...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: greencmp

The first time two cave men decided to work together on something, or share something we began moving that direction...

Voluntary cooperation is not state ownership of the means of production.

It's not even socioeconomic interventionism.

a reply to: greencmp

Correct, they want more invasive socioeconomic interventionism.

But, whether they realize it or not, it pushes us further toward inevitable socialism.

Incorrect. We want our trillions back, it's OURS and we want to have a say over how OUR money is spent. We want them to pay their fair share and be good for our economy again. We want to go BACK to a system that held companies and banks accountable be a positive for Americans or sell off and close shop, good day. When was the last time revoking a Corporate Charter was ever on the table anywhere in America? How many Americans today understand what that is?

You and your friends and compatriots here, there and everywhere else may be entirely comfortable with the level of control Banks and Corporations have over our political system, our tax dollar spending.

Bernie and his supporters and millions more Americans are not. I don't think that, in any kind of way, makes us the idiots in the room.

a reply to: Kali74

There are completely valid arguments for curtailing cronyism and even holding beneficiaries retroactively accountable for their criminal activities, politicians and their corporate sponsors alike.

Throw them all in jail but, don't destroy the country.

a reply to: greencmp

There are completely valid arguments for curtailing cronyism and even holding beneficiaries retroactively accountable for their criminal activities, politicians and their corporate sponsors alike.

Throw them all in jail but, don't destroy the country.

To avoid such a travesty again, we would have to allow the natural regulations and incentives of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of bureaucrats and politicians. Those banks should have failed.

"Going after the banks" is simply more government intervention to rectify past government intervention. I don't see how that works.

a reply to: TheTory

because something is tax-payer funded does not mean it is socialist, is my only point. I've noticed this specious argument being passed around as of late.

But....
yes! It does!

If tax-payers are funding it, it is "socialist" - it is "socialsim" - by definition!!!!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

But....
yes! It does!

If tax-payers are funding it, it is "socialist" - it is "socialsim" - by definition!!!!

What definition would that be? I have yet to see it.

a reply to: TheTory

I agree of course. I just ignored her demand for trillions of dollars and focused on what legal recourse may actually be available.

If a politician is proven to have broken the law, they should go to jail. If not a higher standard, they should be held to the same standard as anyone else, including corporations.

We must end interventionism before it becomes socialism.

a reply to: greencmp

It's our money and it needs to be spent on programs that help people get out of the hole that was dug for them. So yes, we are going to fight to take it back. This will go miles and miles to bettering our Nation, status quo and austerity will destroy us.

a reply to: greencmp

I agree of course. I just ignored her demand for trillions of dollars and focused on what legal recourse may actually be available.

That's a good question. Is there any indication a crime has even been committed?

I'm not fully informed on the bailout and the mortgage crisis, I'd have to read more on it, but if that recent movie with Christian Bale had any truth to it, a lot of it also had to do with the poor consumer choices in regards to mortgages and lending.

a reply to: TheTory

What definition would that be? I have yet to see it.

Really?

So, you're going to take that road, instead of learning about what Bernie is proposing?

Semantics again?

Yeah ---------

no. Not taking the bait.
Educate yourself.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

It's our money and it needs to be spent on programs that help people get out of the hole that was dug for them. So yes, we are going to fight to take it back. This will go miles and miles to bettering our Nation, status quo and austerity will destroy us.

If you are talking about the actual bailouts from Bush and Obama (all of it, GM, etc., not just the banks), we aren't getting that money back.

While some will claim that because the banks returned the money they are golden but, I disagree. The money we gave them to sure them up was used to buy out their competition leaving us in more precarious circumstances than before the crash. That damage is done and the only way to move forward is to disband the FED and forbid further interference with the economy.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: greencmp

I agree of course. I just ignored her demand for trillions of dollars and focused on what legal recourse may actually be available.

That's a good question. Is there any indication a crime has even been committed?

I'm not fully informed on the bailout and the mortgage crisis, I'd have to read more on it, but if that recent movie with Christian Bale had any truth to it, a lot of it also had to do with the poor consumer choices in regards to mortgages and lending.

Yes, it was a classic state sponsored bubble. It was subsidized by Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and our student loan crisis is even bigger.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Really?

So, you're going to take that road, instead of learning about what Bernie is proposing?

Semantics again?

Yeah ---------

no. Not taking the bait.
Educate yourself.

I've read all of Bernie's proposals on his website. As a matter of fact, I've read every candidates proposals on their respective websites.

You said it was the definition of socialism, yet cannot provide that definition. Your only argument is a semantics argument, except you cannot provide the semantics. So, excuse me while I do not believe you.