Writes my son John on his blog today. He also includes some of the things he wrote while live-blogging Bernie in the 2016 campaign debates. Example:
A member of the audience begins his question by pointing out that opportunities often go disproportionately to "older Caucasian men and women." Sanders interrupts him with a self-effacing joke: "You're not talking about me, are ya?!"
Posts
107 comments:
"My vote for Sanders in 2016 was a protest against the lack of adequate competition. That doesn’t seem like it will be a problem this time."
Trump beat 16 Republicans to win the White House. It's only fair he beat 16 Democrats to get reelected.
Trump will pick his opponent. He knows how to push the Socialists buttons.
Bernie’s slogan: The Original Socialist
Don't get ahead of yourself, kid. Just because there are a lot of people in the race now doesn't mean they'll be in the race when your primary comes up.
The Democratic (sic) machine will pick who will be the nominee.
"Don't get ahead of yourself, kid. Just because there are a lot of people in the race now doesn't mean they'll be in the race when your primary comes up."
I'm glad I'm still a "kid" at almost 38 years old. I wasn't referring to the sheer number of candidates remaining in the race by the time the New York primary is held. I meant that throughout the 2020 primaries, there was a problem with Hillary Clinton being the main candidate and not being good enough in my opinion. My sense is that there's going to be a stronger field this time.
So he doesn't (and didn't) have a problem with the fact that Sanders is an utterly unrepentant socialist whackjob who, if he got control of the Executive Branch, would cooperate with fellow travelers in the Democrat party and the permanent bureaucracy to wreck what is left of our Republic, very possibly in irreversible fashion?
Glad that's all cleared up.
If it happens early enough, the Dem nominee is going to be whoever Obama endorses. If it's too late, the Dem nominee might be someone Hillary endorses. If they're not careful, they could both end up being completely wrong in which case their respective legacies went from 100 to 1 in about 4 years. How's that for the pace of change is changing!
Fyi neither Obama nor Hillary will endorse Bernie. Screencap this.
Can't wait for the already-written anti-Bernie stories to start dropping 24 hours from now.
I love this time of the election cycle, when Dems start ranting at other Dems as to how slanted the coverage is against their candidate and how controlled the media narrative is by a few major donors.
Then after the election, of course, we return to how the media isn't biased at all and they must continue reporting "the truth" for democracy to properly function.
So Bernie is a Democrat again?
The MSM is in the tank for Harris. That's painfully obvious.
John Althouse Cohen- what do you think about Howard Schultz?
Almost 38 is way younger than you would ever believe, at almost 38. Trust me, take advantage of every moment, right now.
If it happens early enough, the Dem nominee is going to be whoever Obama endorses
The Obama endorsement will be a lagging indicator, not a leading one.
Lucid-Ideas- I don't know if it's true, but it has been reported neither Obama will endorse a primary candidate. That makes sense, first of all because Holder wants to run and is one of Obama's best friends (but really doesn't stand a chance) and second of all-- what if Obama's candidate loses (again?). How embarrassing for him!
The Democrats have no lack of crazies this year.
Bernie has competition,.
Trump is trash, Kevin. Redneck Nation along with Russia, Comey, and the violent, domestic terrorist outfit, The NRA will not steal the erection in 2020. Bernie is too old, and looks all of his 77 years. Maybe Sanders wants to influence the Democratic party's platform. Any old soiled shoe should stomp Schlump senseless in 2020. Notice, I achieved six S's in a row.
I disagree. The shitshow that is the Dem field and the comparative weakness of the candidates is going to cause a natural increase in the volume from party grandees for someone - someone they respect - to break the stalemate. Of course this will be contentious. Perhaps it's true Obama would be the 'lagger' and Hillary (since she's political poison) would be the early endorsee. Bill is a non-issue and could potentially hurt any female candidate anyway. That leaves Obama.
Like I said screencap it. The howls for him to put his weight behind one of these will be deafening.
My prediction is that it will be Biden or Harris. NO ONE will endorse Bernie. They both still blame him.
I don't think Bernie has much of a chance. I get the sense that although there's still a lot of good feelings towards him from a lot of younger left leaning voters, most of them view him more as sort of a kind hearted grampa figure who struggles to get that dang blasted TV remote to switch on Netflix rather than someone who could go up against Trump. They really want somebody younger and slicker, preferably a woman and/or racial minority, not another old white dude.
Unless they literally find a skeleton in her closet, my money is still on Kamala being their ultimate choice.
I agree. Without Hillary, the field is stronger, but it's still the same old BS.... with less corruption.
Of course the other side is mostly BS as well. but the other-side cannot break thru because they are tainted by the hack press as "right wing".
No mention how far radical left the left have moved.
Unless they literally find a skeleton in her closet, my money is still on Kamala being their ultimate choice.
Kamala's closet is a skeleton-rich environment.
Democrats take no responsibility for their actions.
"My vote for Sanders in 2016 was a protest against the lack of adequate competition."
You sure showed them.
I was also upset by the lack of choices in the Democratic primary of 2016. But I would only vote for a Democrat under 70. If Sanders had won the nomination I would have voted for any Republican under 70.(That rule excluded Trump and barely allowed for Clinton) I am dismayed by talk folks like Warren, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Bloomberg, Weld running.
Hillary will enter the race late and claim to be saving the Democratic Party. She will pick Booker as her VP.
Kamala's closet is a skeleton-rich environment.
I don't doubt it. But in order to take her down the skeleton has to be sufficiently bad. It has to be an affront to one of the left's sacred cows. Something on the order of
- hard evidence that she knowingly covered up a sexual assault
- hard evidence of her saying horrible things about gays or trans people
- many, many testimonials of her destroying the careers of many Good Liberals
"My vote for Sanders in 2016 was a protest against the lack of adequate competition."
If only a serious, competent, non-hack competitor would have offered herself!
But, as readers of this blog know, the Althouse clan never gets the candidate to match their refined taste in politics.
In the next round, there will be plenty of "competition," but I suspect the Althouses will once again declare it "not adequate."
And once again they will be right!
“Any old soiled shoe should stomp Schlump senseless in 2020.”
I think Trumpit has a point here. If someone as unexciting as Evers could win in Wisconsin, Trump won’t win Wisconsin. blowback to Trump will play a big role in 2020.
John Althouse Cohen has a point too, the field of Democratic candidates is very different and stronger than in 2016.
Is the Dam field stronger? Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb were once stars of the Democratic party.
Historically, of course, an incumbent with a strong economy is simply unbeatable. The Democrats' only real hope is recession.
There's no place for Bernie in 2020. Last time around, he was the only voice farther left than Clinton. This year, there are any number of younger, sexier Democrats vying to occupy that space or move even farther left.
Inga: " think Trumpit has a point here."
LOL
Trumpit and Inga.
Perfect.
I have a feeling John is not alone in this, and that Bernie may find himself embarrassingly alone.
Between the large field (and one that probably does not include that lovable rogue Hillary), the fact that Bernie more than ever looks like someone's grandpa who wandered out of the nursing home, the sexism/harassment issues (whether valid or not), Bernie's apparent limited appeal to non-white voters, and just generally the times being what they are, I suspect Bernie is yesterday's news, and will find that out quickly.
John, What are the key policy positions you’re looking for a candidate to hold to win your vote?
The point of old socialist Bernie is to paint socialism with an old grandparent who cares about you.
The Castro family cares about you.
I think Trump should declare his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Now that would be interesting. They couldn't deny him ballot access in the primaries, could they?
You know he'd have a blast on the debate stage. Of course, he'll also have a blast live-tweeting the Democratic debates. As a viewer, though, it would be amazing to see him actually on the stage.
It makes sense that BS would love socialism. After all, he's done quite well subsisting on checks from the government for his entire adult life. The fact that he thinks his experience scales up is the indicator that he's a moron.
Jeez you think the Dem field is stronger because it has a bunch of 1 term or 2 term Senate back benchers?
I have voted for Democrats and Republicans my whole life. I have been absolutely torn in some elections on who to vote for, because neither party never really represented me. I'm pro gay marriage, pro choice, believe there are people who need help paying for health care, believe there should be criminal justice reform and that people need more help with mental health and addiction.
But I can't see a single good thing in this 2020 Dem field. Will one of you Democrat-leaners please tell me who you like and what it is about them that makes them "strong" to you?
Not Sure: "It makes sense that BS would love socialism. After all, he's done quite well subsisting on checks from the government for his entire adult life."
Bernie Sanders has never had a real job in his entire life and the one time he was on a commie commune the commies had to kick him out.......for laziness.
Yet he will still garner astonishing levels of LLR support, though there are only about 1000 of them so it won't make much difference.
Is there any adult who actually believes that: (a) socialism is a good thing, (b) socialism has worked in other countries, and (c) the US would become a better place if it adopted socialism?
Please explain.
Without Hillary, the field is stronger
In some senses perhaps, but honestly, which among this mob of candidates matches her credentials, such as they are? There are a passel of nothings. A full clown car emptying itself into a methadone clinic.
Jew... I mean, White privilege, is so early twentieth century.
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz rejected Democratic complaints that his Independent 2020 campaign will guarantee President Trump's re-election, and said Democrats themselves will guarantee a Trump victory by nominating a "radical left" nominee.
"The stakes are too high to cross our fingers and hope the Democratic Party nominates a moderate who can win over enough independents and disaffected Republicans, and even fellow Democrats, to defeat Trump next year," Schultz wrote in a blog post Monday. "That any opponent can oust Trump, no matter how far to the radical left they are, is a fallacy."
Prepare for the leftwing-Media-Hate machine pile on.
Hillary's credentials consist of setting up a private server and using it in secret while head of the State Department. (then deleting e-mails that would prove she did so in order to line her and her family foundation's bank account. A foundation where 50+ people are on a payroll, and those people are probably cross-over media elites.)
This fact doesn't bother the left, but it bothers anyone who cares about equal justice under the law. Or - normal people.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
I think it'd be great if Hillary grows a pair, and jumps in the race, too! You know, she really wants to.
Run, Hillary, Run! You can win it back!
Seeing the media in action, I would say they already have their nominee. Kamala Harris. They are acting as giddy around her, as they used to act around the original Messiah....Obama.
Maybe, your statement is a great example of conservatism v liberalism. All of your concerns are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. Go to work advancing your concerns at the State level
I would not vote for a Communist/Socialist in 2016 and I won't do so in 2020.
Seeing the media in action, I would say they already have their nominee. Kamala Harris. They are acting as giddy around her, as they used to act around the original Messiah....Obama..
It helps white liberals purge their liberal guilt. They reason that if they support an attractive black candidate, it must mean they aren't racist. The Mayoral knee-pads she used on Willie Brown, gets lost in the shuffle.
Did Kam Harris script the whole Jussie Smellit farce or only the noose part?
Hmm? Do we elect Crazy Bernard, the man who has never worked a job in his life apart from the creation and spreading of Communist Party Propaganda? He could run with Maduro as his VP. All Maduro would need is another one of those photo shopped Hawaiian Birth Certificates.
Why not RBG as President. She is a true heroine of the hate the men party, and she was just raised from the dead. That alone is worth something.
"Is there any adult who actually believes that: (a) socialism is a good thing, (b) socialism has worked in other countries, and (c) the US would become a better place if it adopted socialism?
Please explain."
It's working in China and Vietnam. They are both Communist dictatorships with strong economies. You thought I was going to say Sweden. Fooled you. You were trying to bash socialism with an old trope about Cuba and Russia, and failed miserably. Stick to Tiddlywinks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiddlywinks
JAC selects politicians who want to impoverish the nation?
Not sure what to make of that fact...
Press might actually do their jobs with Bernie. No chance with Kamala.
"The Mayoral knee-pads she used on Willie Brown, gets lost in the shuffle."
What the hell are you talking about?
Trumpit: "It's working in China and Vietnam."
LOL
Hopelessly stupid. But in a good way.......LOL....
"Chinese economic reform"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
"How China Became Capitalist"
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist
"China's The Most Viciously Free Market Economy On The Planet Right Now"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/19/chinas-the-most-viciously-free-market-economy-on-the-planet-right-now/#d790bbc659e7
Bottom line for the dummies like Trumpit:
You can have just as much socialism as your capitalism can fund.
The Mayoral knee-pads she used on Willie Brown, gets lost in the shuffle."
Trumpit: "What the hell are you talking about?"
Apparently its never too early to go Full Inga.
Well, I casually challenged any adult to defend modern-day socialism, and, to her credit, Trumpit rose to the occasion.
And, well, we'll just leave it at that.....
Bay Area Guy: "Well, I casually challenged any adult to defend modern-day socialism,...."
Trumpit and the lefties have no idea the extent to which China and Vietnam and others introduced market concepts across their economic landscapes.
They had to....otherwise everyone starves under communism/socialism.
But only every single time, everywhere its ever been tried.
Bernie should come out again against illegal immigration and its adverse effect on the wages of American workers.
There’s a sizeable constituency of people who are against illegal immigration and no one in DC is representing their interests.
It's understandable that someone might think that China is a paragon of socialism, because of its epic pollution levels. But it's a country with a Communist political system that has continuously evolved from full-bore central planning to a mostly market economy (the "personal responsibility system") since the early '80s. That's how it's lifted 500 million people out of poverty over that period.
Socialism starts with government employees getting as much as they can, ie: early fully funded retirements et al.. while the rest of us work until we are dead to pay for it.
First of all, China's system should be the last to hold as any kind of exemplar, let alone a case for the success of socialism. Even overlooking all the human rights abuses and the dark past of the horrors of Maoism, China is not exactly something to aspire to.
For one thing, China's current system couldn't really correctly be described as "socialist". In modern times, it's more of a highly growth dependent, curated cronyism administered by an oligarchy of old guard "communist" kleptocrats. The strength of their economy is a result of allowing a limited free market to persist in designated "special economic zones", combined with neo mercantilistic trade policies and currency manipulations. It's the result of a long series of compromises and concessions that amount to basically admitting that Communism doesn't work. If anything, China's economic success probably more fairly describes how allowing even a limited free market can enrich a country. It's an argument for less government control, not more.
Since major companies in the US are run by leftists like Bezos and Schultz and Gates and Buffett, they deserve Socialism.
Take all the Koch Brotgers wealth and give it to the wetbacks since they are in favor of open borders. The Koch’s want Socialists to be able to come to the US so let the Koch’s suffer for their foolish philosophy.
It’s fun to watch these jagoffs get what they deserve.
Want Socialism? Let's appropriate all the real estate in California and redistribute it equally to the peasants. Then let the workers at Google and Facbook seize the means of production. Let's send some of our tech moguls and university professors out to the countryside to shake hands with a shovel and help with the harvest. If that's too radical, maybe you just want Free Shit.
Want Socialism? Let's appropriate all the real estate in California and redistribute it equally to the peasants.
Good idea. Here's another -- let's build that Bullet Train in California, from the Southern California Border to Pacific Heights in SF and/or Silicon Valley, so "undocumented immigrants" can conveniently and safely travel to those locales.
We could give them travel vouchers for the train fare.
You know you are a fine American when you suggest that how China and Vietnam do things is what we need here. See how ridiculous and far into the evil you need to go to defend your positions now? Maybe you should take a second look at those positions and particularly what you are so adamantly against that makes you drift that far.
Trumpit do you really think socialism/communism is working in Vietnam? Vietnam ranks 30 places below Cuba in per capita income.
Vietnam ranks 30 places below Cuba in per capita income.
See how well Cuba's doing?!
Bernie Sanders. I don't think he will get the nomination.
However, I do think the rhetoric about socialism has the potential to confuse Generation Z, and some Millennials. Much of this younger generation has not studied the Cold War.
So, if Australia, Sweden, Iceland and Germany = Socialism in popular rhetoric, you are gonna confuse a lot of people. They may visit Iceland, Australia, Sweden or Germany and think, "Yeah, I like this place. I like socialism. I'm a socialist."
The conflation of economic systems like Australia or Sweden with Venezuela is not going to work. Anyone can see they are 2 very different countries. But, you may end up changing the definition of socialism in the USA, just as the definition of "Liberal" has been altered to a unique American definition.
"Bernie Sanders has never had a real job in his entire life and the one time he was on a commie commune the commies had to kick him out.......for laziness."
I think Bernie is the only lazy Jewish person I have ever heard of. Am I a bad person to say that?
Bernie fits neither the Democrat zeitgeist nor the national one. He’d fit better if he was running for cranky great-grandpa than for president.
That thing under Hillary's shirt isn't a back brace. She's growing a tortoise shell. Slow and steady wins the race....
Poor ol' Bernie. Last time he owned the left of Hillary territory. Today the entire D field is left of Hillary.
There is a high correlation between economic freedom and population wealth. There is a high correlation between poverty and socialism. Why would anyone choose to change the former for the latter? And as an added bonus we can get our poverty through the killing and subjugation of our own people. Probably the biggest evil ever foisted upon humans.
Bernie fits neither the Democrat zeitgeist nor the national one. He’d fit better if he was running for cranky great-grandpa than for president.
I'm thinking the crazy, New York Uncle who shows up at your Bar Mitzvah.
Bernie is a millionaire now. After selling out with book deals and other various government whore streams of income. Wonder if he'll drop "millionaires" from his Millionaires and billionaire song?
Looks like YOutube did it for him.
LOL - Benries old "Millionaires and Billionaires" is now just "Billionaires"
too funny.
Bernie Sanders has never had a real job in his entire life and the one time he was on a commie commune the commies had to kick him out.......for laziness."
Heh! Heh!
It's pretty hard to get kicked out of a commie commune. Normal standards of societal interactions are not strictly enforced.....
In all this talk about socialists running for president, one might recall prominent American socialist — co-chairman indeed for a time of the Democratic Socialists of America — Michael Harrington's words: Some years back (he passed away in 1989) Harrington stated that in his view America (the United States) is already the most socialist country on the face of the earth — and that indeed the U.S. is really much more socialist than (e.g.) Sweden! To wit (quoting…):
Robert MacNeil: Finally, tonight, we remember political activist Michael Harrington, who died yesterday — he was 61 years old. Harrington began his career as a leftist political organizer, author, lecturer, and teacher in the early 50's. He became co-chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America in 1983. Among his books was The Other America: Poverty in the United States, published in 1962 — it was widely viewed as helping set the scene for the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty.
I spoke with Harrington a year ago, when he was already suffering from the cancer that led to his death. I asked why he thought socialism had never caught on in the United States.
Michael Harrington: I think that's very complicated, but to just tick off a number of the reasons:
[1.] Number one, we're a presidential country, not a parliamentary country. In Canada, so much like us, there's a socialist party which in the polls right now is at about 28-29%, which has been 20% or better for years. In part that's because in Canada you can vote for your socialist candidate for Parliament, and he or she can then affect the Executive in the Parliament.
[2.] Number two. Because the United States in the period when most European workers were becoming socialist, which was the period roughly from 1880 to 1914 — in the United States that was the period in which it was more important that you were Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, white or black, Italian, Irish, etc. That is to say, our race, our ethnicity, all of those complexities made it difficult to develop a class consciousness when people were much more ethnically and religiously and racially conscious.
[3.] Finally, the most complex of all, in my opinion. There's a sense in which I think America is the most socialist country on the face of the earth right now — which is one of the reasons we don't have a socialist movement. By that I mean that the United States I think has always been one of the most egalitarian, open, non-deferential societies. We've never had any real Tories — any real conservatives — in America. One of the reasons that Canada has a socialist movement is that our Tories went to Canada after the Revolution, and sat around and told the workers that they were human refuse — that they were no good! And one of the things that generates socialist consciousness is having a bunch of upper-class snobs trying to push people down — we've never had it. And, I think, in a crazy way — socially — I've always thought that America is really much more socialist than Sweden!
(/unQuote)
(PBS MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, Robert MacNeil's interview with Michael Harrington, broadcast August 2, 1989; transcribed by me [MEM])
Over on Reddit there's an enormous thread (over 26k replies at the time of this posting) about his announcement. Glancing through it there seems to be a great deal of concern over "Russian Bots" in the thread.
By that I mean that the United States I think has always been one of the most egalitarian, open, non-deferential societies. We've never had any real Tories — any real conservatives — in America. One of the reasons that Canada has a socialist movement is that our Tories went to Canada after the Revolution, and sat around and told the workers that they were human refuse — that they were no good! And one of the things that generates socialist consciousness is having a bunch of upper-class snobs trying to push people down — we've never had it. And, I think, in a crazy way — socially — I've always thought that America is really much more socialist than Sweden!
This Michael Harrington person seems to have an odd idea of what it means for a country to be "Socialist". He seems to be using it to describe a culture and not a system of government. But it's interesting.
MayBee said...
"Is the Dam field stronger? Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb were once stars of the Democratic party."
Regrettably for Jim Webb, he's a non-starter due to wrongthink.
@Michael McNeil,
Good quote by Harrington, thanks.
Demonstrates how over-educated, leftwing academics -- even as they approach eternity -- are still clueless about basic stuff.
As for his 1962 book, The Other America: Poverty in the United States, serving as the intellectual thrust for Johnson Administration's War on Poverty, well, I hope there's a Hell and he's there with Karl Marx.
So he doesn't (and didn't) have a problem with the fact that Sanders is an utterly unrepentant socialist whackjob who, if he got control of the Executive Branch, would cooperate with fellow travelers in the Democrat party and the permanent bureaucracy to wreck what is left of our Republic, very possibly in irreversible fashion?
As I said, I was casting a protest vote. Of course it’s fair to disagree with my vote, but that was my reasoning. My reasoning was not that I actually wanted Sanders to be president. Why wasn’t that the decisive factor for me? Because I knew there was no way my one vote was going to stop Hillary Clinton, the former Senator from New York, from winning New York.
Number two. Because the United States in the period when most European workers were becoming socialist, which was the period roughly from 1880 to 1914 — in the United States that was the period in which it was more important that you were Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, white or black, Italian, Irish, etc. That is to say, our race, our ethnicity, all of those complexities made it difficult to develop a class consciousness when people were much more ethnically and religiously and racially conscious.
About the time we surpassed European living standards.
Wa St Blogger @ 1;13
It isn't a matter of redistribution of wealth. It's punishing those that have more. Like all peasants they believe that there is only so much wealth in the world and if you have more than they do you stole it. As I like to point out to my lefty aquaintances; the amount of wealth is nearly infinite. The amount of money is, however, finite.
Nobody appears to be "feeling the Bern" except possibly the Millenials . But Gen Z's are now voting and they want independence not socialism and bureaucracy. Bernie also brings us the less than upstanding reputation of zero accomplishments while getting rich through his position atop the Vermont delegation for what seems like forever.
He took to buying houses during the 2016 using campaign funds or perhaps some bribes to back down from Hillary - when two years earlier his net worth was under $450K (despite a $200K annual salary and benefits) which ranked him #88 among 100 Senators. He now owns a vacation home at Lake Champlain, his home in Burlington and he owns the D.C house where he really lives.
But CNN and MSNBC are trying to influence the 2020 primary to be 100 Dem candidates- and there is supposed to be something important about polls that put Willie Brown's ex-live-in #1, followed by Sanders and Biden but Biden has yet to declare and likely will not IMHO.
"Is Vietnam a rich or poor country?
From one of the poorest countries in the World with per capita income below US$100 per year, Vietnam is now a lower-middle income country with per capita income of US$1,910 by the end of 2013."
The Vietnamese also had to rebuild their country after the Vietnam War that wrecked their infrastructure, and economy, and left millions of Vietnams dead. Did the U.S. ever pay Vietnam for all the damage it did during the war? How much? Answer: NOTHING!
https://www.quora.com/How-much-war-reparations-did-America-give-Vietnam
I understand John’s vote. Really, Hillary should literally be in jail, the most corrupt, criminal major party candidate in our lifetimes.
Drago said...
Bottom line for the dummies like Trumpit:
You can have just as much socialism as your capitalism can fund.
I know it is hard to tell these days but Trumpit is a moby.
John Althouse Cohen said...
I'm glad I'm still a "kid" at almost 38 years old.
You are still voting for Democrats and you have a soul.
That puts you firmly in the kid category.
Bernie Sanders wants to turn the US into Venezuela. I don’t understand how you could vote for someone like that.
Vietnam has grown rapidly from utter shithole under central planning to moderately middling economy after enacting market-oriented reforms such as allowing private ownership of land and corporations. That's yet another demonstration of the absolute superiority of "market socialism" to system that suppresses markets. It doesn't follow--as a matter of either logic or evidence--that "market socialism" is superior to a system that allows even more economic freedom.
Maybe JAC (who is 38 and should know better) can draw a Venn diagram of people that are willing to vote Progressive and are willing to pay Danish level taxes. Perhaps he can also draw us a Venn diagram of the Blue State voters who hate Trump, hate Republicans and are pissed off they are capped with their SALT deductions on their federal income tax but are going to vote for the Progressive candidate. I guess he forgot or never heard the adage " my son has no heart if he isn't a Communist at eighteen and he has no brain if he isn't a conservative at forty". Not that I want him to do it but just for the giggles of the reactions from Democrats imagine if Trump proposed raising taxes to the FDR era level and no SALT deductions.
Bernie is no longer needed. The "Bernie policies" have taken over the Democrat party. Do any of you morons in the rest of the country EVER take a look at California? It used to be the state of Reagan. Because of immigration, its now so far left, the Democrats can go NUTS. They literally don't have to care what average middle class people to right of Obama think. There are so many immigrants and sons of immigrants and leftist they can do anything.
The USA is headed the same way. But anyway, keep babbling about how bad socialism is, while importing socialists.
The GDR, East Germany, was the most successful socialist state. I read somewhere that their standard of living was about a third to a half of that in West Germany. It was, however, the most thorough going police state that has ever existed so you didn't have to worry about crime.........Social security was introduced to Britain by Winston Churchill in the 1920's. Social security itself was introduced in Europe by Bismarck several generations earlier. It's undoubtedly the most popular of FDR's New Deal reforms, but it's a stretch to say that it is socialist program......FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration was a socialist program. They sent representatives to the USSR to study how to implement collective farms in the USA. Sadly, nothing came of these studies. Maybe with Bernie. Food is a human right. If we have collective farms, we will perhaps be able to feed our homeless people. There are economies of scale that we can introduce with large collective farms and, with state control, we can limit the number of cow farts. Collective farms are an idea whose time has come, and Bernie is just the guy to introduce that visionary programm.
"I voted for Bernie Sanders in the New York primary in 2016. I do not intend to do so in 2020."
_____
I'm with him.
Pete(r) Buttenien (whatever) of Indiana has my vote so far. Excellent candidate. Let's go.
..wading into the pool, with a conspicuous bubble.
The fact that John didn't vote for Hillary for being thoroughly corrupt and instead for a tweenish protest of being told what to do speaks either poorly to his honesty, attention, or intelligence. But I see where he gets his naiveté beyond any credulous metric...for Democrats.
That the current stances against free speech, amendments, overwheening judicial interference, lies, distortions and blatant media manipulation does not give him any pause in the current crop of candidates...well...let's say I am not impressed with his principles either.
But I don't think he is evil for his stances. Just saddened by his distorted priorities.
Trumpit, please read up on history of Vietnam and get a clue why the U.S. was fighting alongside South Vietnam to repel the the invading communists from North Vietnam. Also see the Korean War.
I’d say Vietnam is poor as is just about every socialist/communist nation. As a comparison, South Korea ranks 47 in per capita income, China 108, Cuba 128, Vietnam 159 and North Korea at 215.
Post a Comment