|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895295)
That's an interesting viewpoint. Usually, when someone states that Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, the proponent usually points to Sweden as a success. So I looked into it. In Sweden 90% of enterprises are in private hands, 5% government-owned (the only major is a mining facility in the north) and 5% in the form of co-ops. That is balanced with a high level of state-supplied benefits financed by very high taxes. Is Sweden really an example of a successful socialist country? Probably not, following your definition. So, where is it successful? Not, I understand, that you are making that claim. Venezuela?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11895301)
Hard to point to a country where socialism has ended up being successful, but given that no presidential candidate is proposing such an agenda, it's difficult to know the relevance of this to the presidential election.
His supporters have been interviewed on TV numerous times and usually proudly declare that they are socialists. It does make one wonder whether they have any clue as to what they are talking about. The impression they project is that they think socialism is a warm and fuzzy thing that will bring them peace and happiness, free college and a boatload of other bennies - at no cost to society. What's not to like? They appear as deluded as Trump's supporters. Assuming Hillary keeps the bulk of Sanders supporters in the general, and that Trump gets the nomination, our election is likely to be determined on the edge by people on both sides who live in an alternate universe. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895306)
The discussion was about what Socialism is, relevant, I suppose, only to the extent that Sanders supporters think that he and they are socialists.
His supporters have been interviewed on TV numerous times and usually proudly declare that they are socialists. It does make one wonder whether they have any clue as to what they are talking about. The impression they project is that they think socialism is a warm and fuzzy thing that will bring them peace and happiness, free college and a boatload of other bennies - at no cost to society. What's not to like? They appear as deluded as Trump's supporters. Your generalization of Sanders' supporters is duly noted. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895306)
our election is likely to be determined on the edge by people on both sides who live in an alternate universe.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11895308)
Again, Sanders' policies are hardly socialist. If some of his supporters believe that, then they are wrong.
Most people on either side of the fence don't know enough about political and economic to understand that he isn't what he claims to be. In addition to his political branding, there seems to be some sort of nostalgia on his part; it would seem that he used to be a bona fide socialist, but has since modified his position. Perhaps he wishes that he could be a socialist, but can't find the heart to admit that it is a vestige of his past (and an indication that he may have been more naive than he would like to believe.) |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11895308)
Again, Sanders' policies are hardly socialist. If some of his supporters believe that, then they are wrong.
Your generalization of Sanders' supporters is duly noted. That leads to an interesting question: what motivates some people to support Sanders rather than The Presumptive Nominee? I think some combination of the following: 1. Failure to understand what socialism really is, and that neither Sanders nor they are socialists; 2. Extravagant promises of government benefits, all to be paid for by "the rich;" 3. Anger at Wall Street and wanting to take Big Money out of our politics; 4. Anger at the Party bosses who appear to be rigging the nomination process for The Presumptive Nominee - so anger at "the establishment"; 5. They feel that The Presumptive Nominee is unreliable, dishonest and motivated by an insatiable selfish desire for power and money - and therefore Sanders is the better, more purely motivated nominee; 6. She is too damn hawkish. Did I miss much? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895341)
I suppose I was generalizing about the Sanders supporters who have been interviewed on the street or university campuses by various cable news organizations. Their responses appear to be fairly uniform.
That leads to an interesting question: what motivates some people to support Sanders rather than The Presumptive Nominee? I think some combination of the following: 1. Failure to understand what socialism really is, and that neither Sanders nor they are socialists; 2. Extravagant promises of government benefits, all to be paid for by "the rich;" 3. Anger at Wall Street and wanting to take Big Money out of our politics; 4. Anger at the Party bosses who appear to be rigging the nomination process for The Presumptive Nominee - so anger at "the establishment"; 5. They feel that The Presumptive Nominee is unreliable, dishonest and motivated by an insatiable selfish desire for power and money - and therefore Sanders is the better, more purely motivated nominee; 6. She is too damn hawkish. Did I miss much? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11895273)
Strictly speaking, the military industrial complex is one huge social program. They like that one.
Kind if feels like - on both sides - military spending is off the table as it's too holy a budget line to talk about. :( |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895341)
I suppose I was generalizing about the Sanders supporters who have been interviewed on the street or university campuses by various cable news organizations. Their responses appear to be fairly uniform.
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895341)
That leads to an interesting question: what motivates some people to support Sanders rather than The Presumptive Nominee? I think some combination of the following:
1. Failure to understand what socialism really is, and that neither Sanders nor they are socialists; 2. Extravagant promises of government benefits, all to be paid for by "the rich;" 3. Anger at Wall Street and wanting to take Big Money out of our politics; 4. Anger at the Party bosses who appear to be rigging the nomination process for The Presumptive Nominee - so anger at "the establishment"; 5. They feel that The Presumptive Nominee is unreliable, dishonest and motivated by an insatiable selfish desire for power and money - and therefore Sanders is the better, more purely motivated nominee; 6. She is too damn hawkish. Did I miss much? Younger people especially are looking for a more drastic change for the future... which leads me to wonder whether Bernie is really the man for it. He's been a State Senator for 30 years but claims not to be part of the 'establishment'. He is obviously very principled and cares deeply about the people he advocates for, but does he deserve to be able to grab the anti-establishment banner when he's been sat in Washington for 30 years already? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by username.exe
(Post 11895387)
And how many that were interviewed provided a competent or nuanced explanation? We shall never know, because that wasn't the intention of Fox News when it set out to do the report.
I think the recurring 'scandals' that keep cropping up (many heavily embellished by her political detractors, of course). Younger people especially are looking for a more drastic change for the future... which leads me to wonder whether Bernie is really the man for it. He's been a State Senator for 30 years but claims not to be part of the 'establishment'. He is obviously very principled and cares deeply about the people he advocates for, but does he deserve to be able to grab the anti-establishment banner when he's been sat in Washington for 30 years already? Agree that Sanders probably doesn't deserve to be considered anti-establishment. Maybe if 17 Dems had offered themselves for nomination the folks might have found the genuine article among the dross. But only an unpopular governor and a centre-right guy were available, in addition to Sanders and The Presumptive Nominee. Where was Andrew, where was Elizabeth, Diamond Joe? Sanders people are rightly pissed (not drunk) that the Fix was so obviously in for The Presumptive Nominee. |
Re: 2016 Election
Apropos of nothing, has anybody else noticed how frequently Ted Cruz slips in bitchy references to Trump's age?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895402)
Maybe if 17 Dems had offered themselves for nomination the folks might have found the genuine article among the dross.
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895402)
But only an unpopular governor and a centre-right guy were available, in addition to Sanders and The Presumptive Nominee. Where was Andrew, where was Elizabeth, Diamond Joe? Sanders people are rightly pissed (not drunk) that the Fix was so obviously in for The Presumptive Nominee.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11895485)
That doesn't seem to have worked out so well for the Republicans.
I'll take the Democrats "presumptive nominee" over the Republicans demagogic "presumptive nomineee" any day. You'll take the Democrat's dishonest "Presumptive Nominee" over the Republicans' demagogic "Probable Nominee" any day? Of course you would, no rage against the machine from our Axeman. I have more of a problem, but it will be sorted out by November 8. We will have two exciting choices on our side. Trump on his own and Establishment Guy running on the last sparks and embers of a dying Republican Party. Think she can win anyway?:lol: |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895506)
17 and no real gold in the sand. You might have had more luck.
You'll take the Democrat's dishonest "Presumptive Nominee" over the Republicans' demagogic "Probable Nominee" any day? Of course you would, no rage against the machine from our Axeman. If you want "dishonest" perhaps you should look at the habitual liar that is leading the Republican field.
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895506)
I have more of a problem, but it will be sorted out by November 8. We will have two exciting choices on our side. Trump on his own and Establishment Guy running on the last sparks and embers of a dying Republican Party. Think she can win anyway?:lol:
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11895506)
17 and no real gold in the sand. You might have had more luck.
You'll take the Democrat's dishonest "Presumptive Nominee" over the Republicans' demagogic "Probable Nominee" any day? Of course you would, no rage against the machine from our Axeman. I have more of a problem, but it will be sorted out by November 8. We will have two exciting choices on our side. Trump on his own and Establishment Guy running on the last sparks and embers of a dying Republican Party. Think she can win anyway?:lol: Who is that? |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:17 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.