Jump to content
270soft Forum

Bernie is running.


Recommended Posts

Just now, Sunnymentoaddict said:

It isn't. He just wants a strong social safety net within the confines of capitalism.

 

2 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Thank you for explaining that part. I always thought Bernie always described himself as an "Independent Socialist from Vermont" or something. Not too sure what a Social Democrat is. Sounds like a synonym to me.

I'm not taking a side here, but for factuality, he describes himself not as a Social Democrat but as a "Democratic Socialist." Take from that what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Seems a little irresponsible to blame all deaths from undeveloped countries on capitalism. Especially when those are a minority of capitalist countries, and literally every Communist country has had issues with starvation, even in the modern days (North Korea, though it has taken steps in the right direction as of recently)

But it is responsible to pin any and all deaths in communist countries?

9 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Not sure what the 'Black Book' is but just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean your ideology hasn't murdered or starved an amount of people equal to the amount of a top 10 country.

Just because you disagree that doesn't mean that capitalism hasn't killed an amount of people equal to the amount of a top 10 country. Interesting how you'll believe anything the corporate media and education system feeds you about Communism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

That's because you lack education on the topic, but insist on speaking on it as though you had knowledge on it, and, like the very many other people who do that today, sound like a fool when you speak.

I was trying to peacefully settle the discussion but I guess not lmao

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

 

I'm not taking a side here, but for factuality, he describes himself not as a Social Democrat but as a "Democratic Socialist." Take from that what you will.

The Parti Socialiste of France is also self-described as "socialist," but it also is social democratic. I can give tonnes of examples of political party names of parties that don't quite live up to them ideologically (including the Constitution Party of the U.S., I might add, who seem to just want to "throw away" certain "inconvenient" aspects of the U.S. Constitution that "impede" their purely so-called-Theonymous vision of government).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Thank you for explaining that part. I always thought Bernie always described himself as an "Independent Socialist from Vermont" or something. Not too sure what a Social Democrat is. Sounds like a synonym to me.

He describes himself as a "democratic socialist", which is a synonym for "social democrat" (I just prefer the term "social democrat", that's the only reason I was using it). They essentially push for social and economic equality, through non-violent means - unlike communism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I'm not taking a side here, but for factuality, he describes himself not as a Social Democrat but as a "Democratic Socialist." Take from that what you will.

That's true, but in this case, they're actually synonyms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jnewt said:

He describes himself as a "democratic socialist", which is a synonym for "social democrat" (I just prefer the term "social democrat", that's the only reason I was using it). They essentially push for social and economic equality, through non-violent means - unlike communism.

In the most technical sense- if we were in Europe- "Social Democrat" and "Democratic Socialist" would be two different entities. The Labour Party under Corbyn is a Social Democratic Party. They want to reform the system within the confines of capitalism. I don't see any major nationalization under Corbyn being proposed. A Democratic Socialist within Europe would be proposing to nationalize the banks, rail, certain types of housing. 

However, because socialism is barely a thing within the US(to the point that the best known socialists is 70something year old and a 29 year old former bartender), these two are synonymous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

In the most technical sense- if we were in Europe- "Social Democrat" and "Democratic Socialist" would be two different entities. The Labour Party under Corbyn is a Social Democratic Party. They want to reform the system within the confines of capitalism. I don't see any major nationalization under Corbyn being proposed. A Democratic Socialist within Europe would be proposing to nationalize the banks, rail, certain types of housing. 

However, because socialism is barely a thing within the US(to the point that the best known socialists is 70something year old and a 29 year old former bartender), these two are synonymous. 

But the Parti Socialiste in France is currently social democratic, though it was once a harder socialist party. That's a good example there. And the New Democratic Party here in Canada has been described by successive leaders as socialist, democratic socialist, and since Jack Layton (leader 2001-2011), social democratic. I believe the UK's Labour Party went through all three labels as well as Blair's "New Labour" throughout it's history, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

But the Parti Socialiste in France is currently social democratic, though it was once a harder socialist party. That's a good example there. And the New Democratic Party here in Canada has been described by successive leaders as socialist, democratic socialist, and since Jack Layton (leader 2001-2011), social democratic. I believe the UK's Labour Party went through all three labels as well as Blair's "New Labour" throughout it's history, too.

Yeah I'll concede those are better examples. From your description of the NDP, is the party shifting more towards a "liberal" platform?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Yeah I'll concede those are better examples. From your description of the NDP, is the party shifting more towards a "liberal" platform?

From an American definition of "liberalism," quite possibly. From an American perspective, the Liberal Party of Canada would be mix of moderate and centrist Democrats, and the Conservatives would be closest to the U.S. Republicans (and have definitely taken more influence from South of the Border from the old, long-standing Progressive Conservatives since the merger with the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance). The NDP, however, also have quite a bit of European-style Social Democratic ideology that is rare among most U.S. Democrats outside certain oft-mentioned New Englanders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patine said:

Obviously you completely ignored the majority of my post.

No, I just am telling you my opinion and that even if we had 5-6 viable choices I, along with a majority of Americans, or at least forum members would continue to vote within the Democrat-Republican choices (rare exceptions like 2016 for some)

7 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

sighs

This thread is why I don't touch this topic with a 30 1/2 pole anymore.

Is that a Grinch reference? Or am I mis-remembering the song?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

 

Is that a Grinch reference? Or am I mis-remembering the song?

Good catch, that was me mistyping a Grinch reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I was sure it was 29 and 1/2 feet, but i wasn't sure :P

 

It's actually 39 and 1/2 feet. The 9 and 0 are so close my finger slipped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

No, I just am telling you my opinion and that even if we had 5-6 viable choices I, along with a majority of Americans, or at least forum members would continue to vote within the Democrat-Republican choices (rare exceptions like 2016 for some)

And, part of my argument, which you obviously did ignore, is that, from an outside perspective, that the Republican and Democratic Parties of the United States, are not natural, true political parties with ideological unity of any true sort as most of the rest of the world would see it, but unstable and forced coalitions that only exist because of the EC and other mechanisms that keep the politically-unhealthy and rigged two-party-system that cheats the Americans of true choice of their leaders almost every election, together. In a more viable and functional system, they'd logically each break into separate parties along their natural fault lines.

Also, saying that the majority of Americans would still, if several viable options existed, continue to vote for the same two parties that have lied to, failed, and cheated the American people again and again, and then smugly sat back and watched as the American voters crawled to them at the ballot box for yet another term of abuse from these two corrupt, complacent, and detached parties continually promoting bad ideas and ideologies that just don't work and won't adapt to the world in the needed ways at the needed times, is a very grim and fatalistic view of the American political scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rarename91 said:

your profile got a flag of a puppet state that had a secret police force.

The GDR wasn't a puppet state. It's not like the US has the FBI/NSA/CIA or anything, and uses them on a much larger and destructive scale than the GDR ever did...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

The GDR wasn't a puppet state. It's not like the US has the FBI/NSA/CIA or anything, and uses them on a much larger and destructive scale than the GDR ever did...

You forgot the DHS and Cyber-Security Something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rarename91 said:

why did they need a wall to keep people in there country?

It wasn't built to keep people in, it was built as a defensive structure around a hostile power, it's like Albania's bunkers, they were built as cheap defensive structures against hostile neighboring powers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

It wasn't built to keep people in, it was built as a defensive structure around a hostile power, it's like Albania's bunkers, they were built as cheap defensive structures against hostile neighboring powers.

Or like Trump's brainchild, for that matter. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Patine said:

And, part of my argument, which you obviously did ignore, is that, from an outside perspective, that the Republican and Democratic Parties of the United States, are not natural, true political parties with ideological unity of any true sort as most of the rest of the world would see it, but unstable and forced coalitions that only exist because of the EC and other mechanisms that keep the politically-unhealthy and rigged two-party-system that cheats the Americans of true choice of their leaders almost every election, together. In a more viable and functional system, they'd logically each break into separate parties along their natural fault lines.

Also, saying that the majority of Americans would still, if several viable options existed, continue to vote for the same two parties that have lied to, failed, and cheated the American people again and again, and then smugly sat back and watched as the American voters crawled to them at the ballot box for yet another term of abuse from these two corrupt, complacent, and detached parties continually promoting bad ideas and ideologies that just don't work and won't adapt to the world in the needed ways at the needed times, is a very grim and fatalistic view of the American political scheme.

Once again. Everything you say is just beating a dead horse. At least on your contempt of the two major parties of a country that isn't even yours. Yes they're coalitions, but these two parties arose out of a multi party era. Once again if there was any viable third party then I'm sure they would get some votes/seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Once again. Everything you say is just beating a dead horse. At least on your contempt of the two major parties of a country that isn't even yours. Yes they're coalitions, but these two parties arose out of a multi party era. Once again if there was any viable third party then I'm sure they would get some votes/seats.

Oh, I'm sorry. So criticizing the failings and corruptions of major parties of nations that aren't one's own nation is wrong. I never would have known by the way many Americans speak of the CPSU, United Russia, the Chinese Communist Party, the Workers' Party of Korea, the ZANU-PF, the Communist Party of Cuba, etc., that so many Americans thought this practice was taboo or wrong or at least something to be avoided in conversation and rhetoric.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...