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.

 

Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp




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.


Interesting. I'll have to look into it more.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
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.


What free market? Unchecked capitalism destroys the free market (and has). How is there a free market when mega-corps set pricing, own the means of manufacturing and distribution (and certainly aren't going to give the competition access), write the laws, can buy out competition, own the locations where there is foot traffic (and buy the building that the competition had), have the capital to slander the competition and advertise in a way that keeps competition irrelevant, has a team of lawyers to sue the competition for who knows what (it doesn't matter because a legal battle of any kind will put the smaller competition out of business), etc. etc. etc.

The "free market" solution is a terribly sad meme that only benefits the wealthy and is keeping them in power. And you are doing their work for them.

Time/Warner anyone?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian




What free market? Unchecked capitalism destroys the free market (and has). How is there a free market when mega-corps set pricing, own the means of manufacturing and distribution (and certainly aren't going to give the competition access), write the laws, can buy out competition, own the locations where there is foot traffic (and buy the building that the competition had), have the capital to slander the competition and advertise in a way that keeps competition irrelevant, has a team of lawyers to sue the competition for who knows what (it doesn't matter because a legal battle of any kind will put the smaller competition out of business), etc. etc. etc.

The "free market" solution is a terribly sad meme that only benefits the wealthy and is keeping them in power. And you are doing their work for them.

Time/Warner anyone?


I realize that, and agree to a certain extent. But I think unchecked capitalism is the result of unchecked consumerism. So I think you're only blaming a small slice of those who should be held accountable for the current states of affairs.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

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.


Please. We get to hear all the time about Hillary being a hag and an evil bitch, how her husband was a cigar-toting rapist and Obama being socialist Muslim scum.

Conservatives love to make personal attacks, especially when the talking points from their favorite Right-Wing propagandist turn out to be false.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Please. We get to hear all the time about Hillary being a hag and an evil bitch, how her husband was a cigar-toting rapist and Obama being socialist Muslim scum.

Conservatives love to make personal attacks, especially when the talking points from their favorite Right-Wing propagandist turn out to be false.


Each side has their idiots I suppose.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: okrian
I realize that, and agree to a certain extent. But I think unchecked capitalism is the result of unchecked consumerism. So I think you're only blaming a small slice of those who should be held accountable for the current states of affairs.


Interesting point. I think they may have gone hand in hand, for a while anyway (a good time back at this point). Since the days of 'snake oil salesmen', we have constantly been told to buy things that we "need". But true, I do put some of the blame on the consumers for getting wrapped up in 'keeping up with the Joneses', and buying into the "need". But at this point, there are a good amount of goods & services that we do need in order to operate at home, raise children, make a living, feel free etc. and we are at the control of monopolies when it comes to those needs. The consumers aren't on an equal playing field with the corporate elite, and haven't been for a long time.



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

This easily goes to motive. Motive being eyes are only on the prize, or the anticipation of those promised huge freebies. Socialism inspires selfishness and greed and even laziness in the common person which is what socialists and commies depend on to gain power. Obama has been a glaringly perfect and embarrassing for the country as whole, example of this.
edit on 2-2-2016 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
We want to exist in a consumer society of Starbucks & Walmart but we want to feed our egos by feeling superior to those that work in such fields, & we definitely don't want anyone in customer service making too much money.

A lean towards socialism seems a natural evolution in a society with this type of mindset.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Tearman
I think most Sanders supporters have pretty clear ideas about why they support him and don't realy give a damn about your definition of socialism.


Yes, they want to use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.


No.

What his supoorters would like is a massive cutback on the useless tanks, that the military has already stated we do not need, in order have 'affordable' stuff.

This is about standard of living vs ludicrous budgets for stuff we don't need. It is about billions in waste which could be used for our infrastructure rather than justify an ever increasing defense budget because we must fear terrorists.


One is not robbing Peter to pay Paul, when Peter has been stealing for decades.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sremmos80

Interestingly the only people who repeat the "free stuff" mantra are conservatives trying to strawman Socialism. I've yet to see a supporter of Socialism, or heck liberal policies in general ever go on and on about getting free stuff from the government.


This is because you're in reality and the fallacy you're calling out does not exist.

Also, the idea that those on the left hate the wealthy or dislike success is another doozy.
Lies told over and over and over definitely stick.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production.

What most people think socialism is, is really just being responsible with capitalism, which include higher taxes on the rich and a welfare system.

Most people believe we live in a capitalist system, which is untrue, a capitalist system does not allow for 'too-big-to-fail' companies to be bailed out, it does not allow for corporate protectionism or corporate welfare. That goes against the very tenants of capitalism.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I like some things about Bernie

1 Hilary would be the alternative
2 wants to legalize
3 honest man, anyone who actually vocalizes the crazy tax increases he wants is definitely honest.
4 his supporters are making it happen for real and are calling out Hilary chanting "shes a liar", Hilarious is more like it
5 the media, especially Fox news said he as well as Trump didn't have a chance.
6 he is a nice guy

But Im voting Trump for way many more reasons than that. Don't even start. If Bernie wins then that's great too.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
The only supporters he has is college students that are voting for him because they think its trendy, I just hope they pull it off and he beats Hitlery. Go college boy !



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: Devino
This would be called a straw man argument. Not a very good one, by the way, as it isn't that easy to "knock over" as is evident by the many discussions found here on ATS over Socialism.


And this would be called deflection. You are merely throwing out the term "straw man" in a blind attempt to negate. Besides referring to vague "discussions" (and most likely those discussions pre-defined by those who have an agenda when it comes to explaining what socialism is) as your support? Address the fact that Sanders doesn't actually want to implement pure 'socialism'... by any definition.

Besides, where did I ignore the actual content of the post... I addressed it directly. The last line of my post did give a fairly standard global definition of socialism.

The false narrative in the OP is clear.
I was agreeing with you. You are correct, a straw man argument is deflection much like you described in your first post. It is a logical fallacy. Sanders is not for Socialism in the manner many are claiming.
edit on 2/3/2016 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I'm no longer a fan of these gotcha videos. The average Us citizen fails so hard in every single one of them. It's just sad.
People don't remember stuff they don't need to know, no big deal.

usually this isn't a problem, but when people are allowed to vote on things they can't even understand I question what we are doing. I don't see an answer though.

Peter schiff's video "Let's ban Profits" at the DNC imo is the best gotcha video.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Considering how badly the right misrepresents Socialism, I'm not surprised. It's hard to get a consistent answer about what Socialism is and isn't. Then that propaganda bleeds over to the left because people want to have balanced perspectives and get confused. Heck conservative members are doing it here in this thread.


Yes, its "the right's" fault that there are so many examples of failed socialist states. I bet you think its "the right's" fault people fear Muslims too. Is there anything your boogyman isn't responsible for?


Failed Socialist states? Most of the 1st world is Socialist to some degree, with the countries with the highest standards of living being the most Socialist. Your view of reality is warped buddy.

PS: Yes it is the right's fault that people fear muslims.


Most of the 1st world fought two world wars. Socialism and world war go together like peanut butter and jelly.

"What if they had a war and nobody showed up?"

Only possible without socialism.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Esoterotica
Maybe if we were a democratic socialist country instead of a quasi fascist oligarchic capitalist country we'd have a better education system & people would be able to give you the Oxford definitions which some seem to put so much value on.


Socialism has different oligarchs.

I remember the 60's radicals saying down with power, but they really lived, we want the power.

The power should not exist. Then no one can abuse it.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
You know there's a pretty big difference between these two things.... one, making sure a small number of individuals don't accumulate overwhelmingly disprpoportionate levels of power. And two, having the state take over everything.


The state is a small number of individuals with overwhelmingly disproportionate levels of power. The thing that should not be.




The first point is what motivates me as a Bernie supporter. Private individuals should not be able to accumulate that much wealth (and thus power) unchecked. It just makes no sense to allow so much power to fall into so few hands.


Remove the state and the power is available to no one.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
capitalism seems to represent trickle down economics from a plutocracy


The plutocracy runs socialism as well.

The plutocracy is people born in power or close to power, no matter where the power is from originally.

Get rid of the power.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You mean like the War on Drugs?


Yes, just like that. So you agree with me?


I agree that the War on Drugs is a conservative policy and not a socialist one.


The War on Drugs is from conservative socialists. Only socialists use government to solve a problem.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join