The Plot To Marginalize Bernie Sanders - Salon

[WillyT]

The plot to marginalize Bernie Sanders: The shared agenda that links Fox News and Hillary Clinton surrogates
Both parties are owned by plutocrats. Sanders' challenge threatens them both, and their responses are oddly similar
Sean Illing - Salon
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2015 05:00 AM PDT

<snip>

Everyone is scrambling to make sense of the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. According to recent polls, the senator from Vermont is second only to Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic voters. Part of the confusion, it seems, has to do with Sanders’ so-called “socialism.” How, the pundits ask, can a self-described “socialist” gain any traction in American politics today?

I expect conservatives to pound this question down the throats of their audiences, but Democrats have latched onto this trope as well. Sen. Claire McCaskill, for instance, blithely suggested that Americans will reject Sanders once they discover his socialist roots: “This is somebody who can carry the torch of middle class opportunity without alienating a wide swath of voters by being, frankly, a socialist,” McCaskill said in defense of Hillary Clinton.

This is becoming tedious. First, Bernie Sanders isn’t a socialist – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. It’s true that he occasionally accepts the label, but he does so in a very nuanced way – which, in my view, only adds to the confusion. But that’s another problem altogether. The point is that there are no socialist candidates running for president. However elastic the term has become, “socialist” does not mean progressive or liberal Democrat. Socialism, at minimum, requires the abolition of private property and government ownership of the means of production.

Nothing in Bernie Sanders’ platform qualifies as socialist, if that term has any relation at all to its historical meaning. Obsessing over Sanders’ socialist leanings is an exercise in distraction. The choice today, the only choice we really have, is between different species of capitalism. Republicans are absolutists; they fetishize the free market. People like Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal want no regulation, no safety nets, and no constraints on private power. They represent the true believers, the ones who despise government and make a divinity of the market. Sanders rejects this brand of capitalist theology, but that doesn’t make him a socialist.

Take a look at Sanders’ actual platform. He’s not calling for the elimination of private ownership of productive forces. His agenda fits neatly under a capitalist paradigm – as it must. Yes, he wants to regulate commercial activities. Yes, he wants to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Yes, he supports unions. And yes, he believes healthcare and education are human rights. He is, however, a capitalist. What he – and many other Americans – reject is corporate welfare and monopoly capitalism and the complete financialization of the American economy. Again, that doesn’t make him a socialist. Even the conservative columnist George Will has acknowledged that Sanders’ vision is just a diluted version of the “social democracy” practiced in much of Europe.

That Sanders is dubbed a “Marxist” or a “socialist” is a testament both to the corruption of language, Fox News and the insidious propaganda machine in this country. The truth is that capitalism has won; no one seriously disputes that – certainly no one in government. “Socialism” is now an epithet, something conservatives hurl at people who challenge corporate power – the term has been emptied of any real content.

Many of the people dismissing Sanders (particularly on the right) have an exaggerated sense of their own freedom. Tyranny, they assume, is something only the state does. But that’s not true. Surrendering political power to corporate interests is a form of tyranny, too. This is what we have today. A political system without rule of some kind is impossible, even in a free society such as ours. The real question is who rules, to what degree, and to whose benefit? Conservatives want to eliminate government as much as possible, to let the market work its will. But we’ve seen the result of that. America, today, is much closer to a plutocracy than a democracy. Corporations write our laws, buy our elections, and dictate political discourse. That’s nakedly anti-democratic, and Sanders is one of the few candidates proposing to do something about it.

<snip>

More: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/14/the_plot_to_marginalize_bernie_sanders_the_shared_agenda_that_links_fox_news_and_hillary_clinton_surrogates/

[Snotcicles]

1. Excellent read, and right on point. nt good job, bud.

[HooptieWagon]

2. Also, the word "socialist" has been thrown about so often,

As fear mongering tactic against Obama, that it's lost its negativity. Obviously Obama isn't a Socialist, thus people aren't afraid of the tag, and are more willing to listen to what Sanders positions are. The only people that are afraid are Wall St banksters and their puppets. Main St finds Sanders positions quite reasonable.

[LiberalLovinLug]

71. I agree

I've said this in another post somewhere. I think Fox News etc... have shot themselves in the foot by calling wolf too many times. They are the ones that have watered the word down to the point that even hard nosed Repubicans know deep down that Obama is far from a socialist, even though they hear it is the case 24/7 on RW media. So Socialism has taken on a confused convoluted meaning. The ACA is a prime example. It is becoming more accepted, this private insurance exchange, they see the choice benefits, but also see that they are still dealing with private firms, yet all they hear on Fox News is that Obamacare is socialism! They are doing it to themselves. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[Betty Karlson]

144. It's been worn out by all the times our TPP-eager president was called socialist. eom

[fasttense]

148. So true

Even this article can't define it properly.

[sabrina 1]

159. And polls show that 7 out 10 young voters WANT a Democratic Socialist

Government because they know what it means. The other 3% are most likely Young Republicans.

So it is a failed 'talking point' and I'm happy to let them keep using it because it shows how out of touch they are with today's world.

[TwilightGardener]

3. It's just beginning. They would have done the same to E. Warren, had she run--which is probably

why she didn't.

[Mnpaul]

94. I say bring it on

Bernie demonstrated last week how easy it is to deal with it. Some reporters may be gun shy after that response.

[ibegurpard]

4. It's not a plot

That implies that it's some sort of secret plan...it's open and blatant.

[merrily]

154. +1 Could not be more apparent and that's been so from the jump.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. GREAT article!

A must-read. I've been thinking a lot lately about how we fought a Revolution to break away from British rule and here we are subjugated again but under corporate rule. I think that should be a Sanders campaign theme.

Oh yeah, and K & R and:

[WillyT]

107. Yep... Check This Out From Thom Hartmann:

Link: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/what-would-democracy-look-like/american-rebellions

Gonna make it an OP.

[Le Taz Hot]

112. Wow!

That's quite the read! It just goes to show you that the more things change the more they stay the same. Glad you're making this an OP -- it needs to be.

[WillyT]

116. It's Over Here... wink, wink, nod, nod...

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026974691

[appalachiablue]

131. Righto, this time it's Corporate Tyranny, absolutist style big time.

[Telcontar]

143. That is the most awesome thing I've seen today

New background image

[daleanime]

6. Author is still a little confused.....

Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

socialist are not for government ownership of the means of production, that is communist. Nor does it call for the "abolition of private property".

There is a wide range of what could be called socialism and what they call for is increased worker/citizens involvement in the control of the means of production and a more equable distribution of the profit.

Which seems very reasonable to me.

[immoderate]

20. I think so too.

My understanding of socialism implies that workers own the means of production. I think they are confusing it with state capitalism.

And capitalism, unless closely regulated, is not sustainable.

--imm

[brooklynite]

22. Socialism (n):

a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies -- Merriam Webster

I understand why you might want to CHANGE the definition, but words have meaning.

[restorefreedom]

28. then let's make sure we emphasize

that bernie is not looking to take away anyone's business. he wants to adjust the tax burden so the wealthy don't get all the breaks and the workers don't get screwed.

that is not socialism. it is just a form of capitalism that the whiney 1% ers are not going to like.

[daleanime]

29. And I'm sure that as a good capitalist....

you would never dream of doing so, but I'm very comfortable disagreeing with "Merriam Webster". Corporations may not be people, but like people, they can be wrong. However, if thinking that I'm wrong makes you happy, then by all means go at it.

[d_legendary1]

48. That definition is so off

People will confuse that with commie-ism. These are also the same people who added selfe, tweep, and hashtag to their list of legitimate English words.

Yeah I know

[Luminous Animal]

50. It's a bit more complicated than that. From Merriam Webster.

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Of course, no dictionary definition can provide any kind of depth to the conversation.

[A Simple Game]

58. Your definition is very narrow and harsh. This one from Dictionary.com is closer to what I learned.

From Dictionary.com:
noun
1.
an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism
2.
any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system

The truth is that socialism can take many forms between capitalism and communism. But the theme is always for the benefit of all, not the good of a few over the needs of the many. In fact Webster's definition also explains just that if you read down the page a little.

From Merriam Webster
Full Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(The bold's are mine)

[eridani]

72. Lucky for us then, that Republicans have been hard at work for 40 years changing the meaning

For them, socialism is any public good that is not strictly reserved for white and/or rich people. I say we just go with that and point out that Democrats think public goods should be for anyone.

[daleanime]

87. I like that....

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Funny how ...

So many wish to quibble with the Webster's definition when a while ago, it was the definitive, unimpeachable, final word.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025890880

[Number23]

123. I just noticed the number of PPR's from that thread you linked. Including the ever so obvious

racist troll, Oktober. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317225&sub=trans

Hell yeah.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. I could have posted a more recent link ...

one that contains many of the now Webster fans.

But I didn't want to start no stuff.

[YOHABLO]

113. Could it ever be possible that Merriam Webster Dictionary is skewed? It's not written in stone.

[mwooldri]

132. Hmmm... Merriam Webster's definition is a bit suspect.

Definition of socialism in English:
noun
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/socialism

A perfect example of non-governmental socialism is the co-operative society. Credit Unions are also a good example of socialism.

Bernie is not a traditional socialist by any stretch of the imagination. A traditional socialist would want to nationalize the banks, not break them up. Bernie's for single payer health insurance but I don't think he's up to buying up the majority of hospitals and medical clinics in the country and put doctors on a salary. I don't think Bernie would want to nationalize GM, Wal-Mart or Koch Industries... something a traditional socialist could be seen advocating for. Hmmm.... government buys Wal-Mart, turns it into a co-operative society, gives every tax payer a single membership share in Wal-Mart Co-Op, government walks away... a traditional socialist's dream. Nice idea, never going to happen.

[rhett o rick]

138. And right on point you are. Sen Sanders is obviously not a socialist as H. Clinton's henchperson

McCatskill would have us believe. Thank you for point this out. In fact Sen Sanders has more Democratic principles than H. Clinton who betrayed the party and helped her close friend George Bush sell the Iraq war. A war that devastated Iraq and pretty much ruined our democracy.

Thanks again for pointing out that Sen Sanders is more of a Democrat than H. Clinton-Sachs.

[DirkGently]

158. "Social Democracy" is the relevant term.

It's not like it isn't well known at this point.

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving the regulation of the economy in the general interest, welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, interventions to promote greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to parliamentary democracy.[1][2][3] Social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater egalitarian, democratic and solidaristic outcomes.[4] "Social democracy" is often used in this manner to refer to the social and economic policies that were prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century.[5][6]

[Trajan]

78. Democratic Socialism ... Democracy and Social Legislation

FDR was a Democratic Socialist ... He didn't claim the title, but his actions suffice to define him as such ...

[Mnpaul]

93. No, he has it correct

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You can have Democratic Socialism where the people make the decisions or can have totalitarian rule(communism)

[daleanime]

95. Social doesn't mean...

government.

And while communism can very easy end up with totalitarian rule, it's not a requirement.

[Mnpaul]

98. social means collective ownership

via a government or other group

[merrily]

155. Democratic socialists are not for govt ownership of the means of production, but the

definition of "socialist" does include government or other collective ownership or control of the means of production.

I wish the Democratic Socialists had chosen a different name, because the name adds to the confusion. But, that ship sailed long ago.

Not to tout my own thread, but the OP and the responses were really useful to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844 (What the hell is an "avowed" Democratic Socialist anyway?)

When I posted it, I also posted in the Socialist Progressive Group seeking their replies. They were great.

[daleanime]

160. This is one where we'll disagree....

true that many people will tell you that communism and socialism are the same thing. They don't do it from a deep understanding of the movements history or purpose, but from a desire to damage it's image.

And we have to admit that it doesn't help matters that socialist cover such a wide range. Personaly, I think that we currently just need to work on strenghtening unions. Where the future might lead is a subject for long debate over a cold drink. But no socialist that I've talked to believes in government ownership.

I will not pretend that any one can control how some one else labels them, but I do think that the conversation, if we are willing to have it, will be good for us.

[merrily]

162. No one has told me that communism and socialism are the same thing, nor did I tell

you that. No one who posted on the thread to which I linked you said that. I also didn't say anything about what the socialists to whom you've spoken say.

But, there are well-settled definitions of words. And, as my prior post said the definition of socialism (but not the definition of Democratic Socialism) includes government or other collective ownership. I did not think I needed to post an definition to support that relatively uncontroversial statement, but

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

You can quarrel with the many definitions that support the statement in my post, but you cannot quarrel with the statement in my post. The definitions do include what I said they include.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

164. People often mistake socialism for communism

socialism is not communism.

[daleanime]

166. True....

[djean111]

7. Yeah, we noticed. Does not faze us. We consider the source - these are quite familiar tactics.

Don't know whether to laugh, sneer, or barf at the protestations that Bernie's supporters are soooo mean!!!!!!! when they criticize any of Hillary's policies. While HRC supporters bring up old bullshit every day. "Does Bernie still believe something from 40 years ago???? I am just soooo curious!" Right.

I just cannot get behind any of the "reasons for Hillary" -
because it is her turn
because she earned it
because she is a woman
because she has amassed a lot of money
because she is inevitable
because a GOP president is horrible
because Supreme court pick

These are what her campaign started with, and it was, IMO, more like running for class president. Put people off. High polls - name recognition.

The foreign policy experience - she seems to love war. And her experience is presented as her own, and then presented as well, she just did what she was told. And it seems like she really was, if just doing what Obama told her, just marking time, keeping in the public eye, until her turn. And then - I was really surprised that, having wanted to be president for so very long, she did not have policy positions rolled out on the first day. What I remember most is the we're gonna amass a shit-load of money theme.

The threats that Congress won't work with Bernie - good grief! The GOP Congress already has committees looking into Benghazi and the emails. They hate her. So what is the point about Congress not working with anyone? To just elect a figurehead?

Ten-cent psychoanalysis of why anyone would not support Hillary - eye roll here. Points for being sincere, minus points for being arrogant.

The presidency, for her, IMO, is more like a prize, like something she always wanted, her campaign is mostly about Hillary, not the country.

That's how I feel, I don't hate her, I just don't see her as a president. If she is the nominee, so be it, but I used up my enthusiasm for her in 2008. What's different? Perspective and the internet. And the feeling that she would be Obama.2, and I am all TPP'd out of Obama.

The fear thing does not work on me. Neither does scorn. If HRC is the nominee I think I am done with politics, it is just a money thing.

Oh well. At least it is not just Bernie's supporters who smell the crap coming from the other camp.

[udbcrzy2]

18. I absolutely agree

It reminds me of high school and they are picking class president or prom queen.

[daleanime]

31. +1

[ciaobaby]

39. couldn't agree more - Thanks !

[JDPriestly]

54. +1000

[MissDeeds]

103. I completely agree on all points

Excellent post

[appalachiablue]

127. + 1

[boston bean]

8. Hillary is a plotting, evil, controlling, money hungry, untrustworthy

insincere, copycat, waffler, republican lite candidate for the POTUS. One might even call her a b*tch, in other words.

[2banon]

11. Good Grief!

get over yourself! You obviously haven't even read the piece in the OP. Your post is embarrassment to your own candidate! sheesh!

[Doctor_J]

16. The Hillarians keep themselves deliberately uninformed. They auto-trash threads with the word

"Bernie" in them. Reality is extremely threatening to them.

[jalan48]

19. They have resorted to locking their thread to keep anti-Hillary voices out.

[roguevalley]

23. some of them believe there are rec squads out there pushing bernie threads to the top

[jalan48]

34. They just don't get the fact that real Democrats like Bernie.

[George II]

86. "They"??

[jalan48]

91. The Hillary Police. They just love banning dissenters.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

133. The Bernie group does EXACTLY the same thing

So I don't exactly understand why you're whining about it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[jalan48]

134. My apologies-I didn't realize it was happening. I haven't seen anyone gloating about it.

[sheshe2]

141. Why would anyone gloat about it?

Oh sure, I see the ones that gloat being blocked from HRC just like the BOG. They seem to think it a badge of honor. The BOG has been called every dirty name in the book here on Democratic Underground. Actually, it has been said that they will go there just to get blocked. How sad is that?

The ones blocked from BSG, they don't really care. I sure don't. What I find sad, is that they block their own supporters, two of which I very much like to talk to. I love reading their posts.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

142. No need to apologize

Seriously. I don't mind it, but people shouldn't pretend they're somehow more moral than the Democrats on the other side.
It's not only annoying, it's not particularly effective.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[lewebley3]

43. Bernie is only scarry becasue he is helping the GOP: With out Hillary the Dem's are done!

[Fawke Em]

61. This is probably the stupidest post I've read in weeks.

Bernie Sanders has been fighting the GOP for decades and he has integrity. He wouldn't be working with them to do anything of the sort.

[lewebley3]

65. Sanders sat on in the Senate doing nothing, He has never been on the national stage

[zeemike]

73. Wow, two stupid posts in a row.

Try for three...the third one is the charm so they say...it's bound to work.

[Thespian2]

111. Good response...

[frylock]

89. erm meh gerd!!12

[hifiguy]

97. This is the best you can do?

[hifiguy]

99. Rec for TRUTH.

[2banon]

101. some of them yes. but then there exist the swarm like hornets drawn to the smell of red meat.

[daleanime]

33. No....

I just disagree with her on some issues that I conceder very important.

It happens.

[boston bean]

36. It does happen. but keep an eye out for how she is described.

much of it is over the top hyperbole with a gendered twist.

[backscatter712]

52. Close...

I do think she's insincere, equivocating, triangulating, and corporate-bought.

There's no need to go misogynistic to explain why I'm not voting for her.

[hifiguy]

102. Eeyup.

Another bought and paid for protector of the 1%, endless militarism and the security state. The embodiment of everything that is wrong with the corporatist status quo.

Very objective and neutral terminology for why I will not vote for her.

[pocoloco]

55. If she gave a fuck about America she would be supporting Bernie!!

......but it may be more important to get that furniture out of storage?

[Nitram]

149. That's a good one!

Pero un poco loco.

[tazkcmo]

80. I agree

with plotting, insincere, untrustworthy, republican lite candidate for President.

[druidity33]

82. This is not worthy of you, Bean. nt.

[beam me up scottie]

85. skinner: "We Hillary supporters need to be better than everyone else."

[djean111]

153. Oh, some more Hyperbole-R-Us. You don't do your candidate much, if any, good, with

reactions like this. Just sayin'.
In fact, reactions like this are what make me wary of Hillary - I am afraid she will skip right to bombing or boots on the ground. No middle ground.

[2banon]

9. True-isms..

As a Sanders supporter, I would argue that Bernie self-identifies as a Socialist philosophically, but he's also quite cognisant of the fact that Socialism in this country is a losing proposition at this juncture in our nation's history. Therefore as a practical matter, I do not believe he would entertain any thought to enacting legislation or advocating genuine Socialist policies, sans a groundswell of popular support for that to even happen. By that I mean a critical mass of support including the "most unlikely" from citizens in the "red state" regions. That's the only way the paradigm shift could successfully occur imo.


these points in fact cut to the core of the of the problem in our political discourse in general.

“Marxist” or a “socialist” is a testament both to the corruption of language, Fox News and the insidious propaganda machine in this country.

This :

Surrendering political power to corporate interests is a form of tyranny, too. This is what we have today. A political system without rule of some kind is impossible, even in a free society such as ours. The real question is who rules, to what degree, and to whose benefit? Conservatives want to eliminate government as much as possible, to let the market work its will. But we’ve seen the result of that. America, today, is much closer to a plutocracy than a democracy. Corporations write our laws, buy our elections, and dictate political discourse. That’s nakedly anti-democratic, and Sanders is one of the few candidates proposing to do something about it.

[DanTex]

10. So this guy is blaming Clinton for the fact that Sanders calls himself a "socialist".

I haven't heard that angle before.

[2banon]

12. I guess I missed Clinton's involvement in this. Where exactly in the article does he say that?

In my reading of this post the problems in our discourse with regard to the terms referenced and framed by the corporate media and political punditry. I missed any statement that directly points the finger at HRC.



On Edit: I see that reference to Clinton "surrogates" appears in the opening paragraph.

Personally, the header does something of a disservice to the rest of the piece. I also take a certain amount of issue with his attempt to suggest Sanders self-identification as a Socialist isn't accurate, because it is.

However, he redeems the piece for me by pointing out and underscoring how these terms have been used as political sledge hammer (my term) in corporate media as with an emphasis on the reality of our political system, no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy.

[DanTex]

13. Me too. I think if Bernie doesn't want to be considered a socialist, he shouldn't say

"I'm a socialist". It's not Hillary's fault that only 48% of Americans would consider voting for a socialist.

[2banon]

14. I edited my previous post you responded to, where I correct myself and added my take on it..

in case you're interested.

[DanTex]

17. The article suggests some "shared agenda" between Hillary and FOX.

The title in the URL calls it a "plot". Which is absurd.

Yeah, there's corporate media, but to suggest that Hillary is plotting with FOX is crazy. FOX hates Hillary, and most on the right who have spoken about the Democratic primary want Bernie to win because they think it will be easier to beat him.

Most of the article is about the term "socialist", which is the word that Bernie uses to describe himself. I would say this is not a great political move in a country where being a socialist polls so poorly, and pointing this out isn't joining some right wing plot.

[Indepatriot]

21. Your posts "suggest" you are a troll on threads involving Bernie Sanders

See you in February.

[1monster]

38. Results of Jury Decision

On Tue Jul 14, 2015, 01:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your posts "suggest" you are a troll on threads involving Bernie Sanders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=444542

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

newbie calling someone a troll. that is rude and inappropriate. Two checks on the boxes for a hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 14, 2015, 01:24 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Both sides are going overboard with the sensitivity these days. Best learn to toughen up or it will be a VERY long primary season.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster is calling out someone as a troll, and callouts are banned.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Indepatriot could have been more diplomatic, but DanTex has been doing his/her best to rile up flame fests in many different threads. Cannot vote to hide this post.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[JaneyVee]

40. How the hell was that able to stand???

This place is getting ugly. Someone alert MIRT.

[JaneyVee]

45. Perhaps delete your post.

[Nitram]

150. Do Bernistas think anyone who is not a full-blown Sanders supporter is a troll?

[2banon]

26. The analysis is a mixed bag of a certain degree of hyperbole together with on point critique of

corporate media & political punditry's profoundly skewed definition of terms and classification of our political system.

I think it's fair to criticize the headline and the sort of scatter shot finger pointing to surrogates, sans actual evidence.

In general there is not enough attention to corporate media's political propagandizing and it's constant-never ending attempt to skew social-economic and political points of views which the writer sh/could have delved into further to better serve the reading public.

I think his attempt to "soften" up the socialist identification of Bernie's political pov was pointless and unnecessary at best. The distinctions between Communism and Socialism is quite significant and could easily have been explained, described and defined without having to reference the campaigns at all. IMO,

Just as an FYI., I consider myself a Socialist and very unapologetic about it.

[DanTex]

63. I agree with the critique of corporate media.

And I have no problem with socialists. But I'm realistic about their chances of being elected president.

[2banon]

83. Well, I'm no youngster here. McGovern was my first presidential vote.

If that gives you a frame of reference with my lifetime experience in this game. I have no illusions, but oddly enough, I still have hope for real change and will vote with that as my motivation. Bernie gives me that.. I'm going in all the way with it. win or lose.

[DanTex]

124. I used to be a youngster. LOL.

My first presidential vote should have been for Gore. But I didn't vote, too complacent. If I had voted it probably would have been for Nader. I was young, and believed the whole "both parties are the same" thing. Then I watched what happened. I appreciate the Bernie fervor. But it annoys me when it gets into what I consider unfair and inaccurate attacks on Hillary.

Yes, I understand that her vote for the IWR was horrible. But let's be honest, a lot hinges on the next election, and if the GOP wins, it will mean a lot of bad things. And Hillary, flawed as she is, stands for most of what progressives want. Not as much as Bernie, I agree. But to say she is the same as a Republican is just madness.

I believe that she will govern about the same as Obama. Which is fine with me. Not just ACA, but preventing a second depression, saving the auto industry, Dodd Frank, which is much better than a lot of people realize, and also Cuba and now Iran. And that's just part of what he's done, and it would have been much more without GOP obstruction.

I believe it's possible to sing Bernie's praises loudly without demonizing Hillary. That's what Bernie himself is doing. I only wish more of his supporters would follow that example.

[ieoeja]

56. Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rupert-murdoch-loves-hillary-clinton/

Clinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card-carrying liberal. She has has collaborated with congressional conservatives on some peices of legislation, called for a "common ground" on abortion and cut a political figure some on the left see as decidedly un-liberal.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our champion of women's rights!



Since that was from 2006, I'm adding a link about this election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rupert-murdoch-would-support-jeb-bush-or-hillary-clinton-in-2016/article/2553662

[hifiguy]

104. She is also a big favorite of war criminal Henry Kissinger

and subhuman piece of shit Lloyd Blankfein, head of Goldman.

One can be readily judged by the company one chooses to keep.

[Doctor_J]

15. No black people at his rallies...

[BrotherIvan]

25. Apparently, only Hillary can talk about economics without

being accused of ignoring people of color.

[KoKo]

24. Recommend Read!

[MannyGoldstein]

27. But didn't Bernie claim he could prevent cervical cancer

with orgasms? I'm not saying that I know that he did this, I'm just asking questions.

I love Bernie and will vote for him but I just have concerns.

Regards,

Does-anyone-buy-this-transparent-nonsense? Manny

[LWolf]

30. It IS tedious.

It's also expected; we can't shake up the system, we can't move toward authentic, substantive, positive change without running into opposition from those that stand a line for the current system.

We have to be strong enough, and large enough, to keep rolling.

[fbc]

32. Can't stop the Sandstorm!!!

[img][/img]

[SoapBox]

44. +1000000

OMG!

That's great!

[Maedhros]

74. Clever...

[LuvNewcastle]

92. That is wild!

I'd like to see what Bernie would say about that one.

[appalachiablue]

129. My God that is fantastic! Sanderstorm and then Bernami!!!

1 Billion Recs!!

[appalachiablue]

137. I want this, how? Can't find it on YouTube- Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I don't believe he's a socialist but he adds to the confusion by calling himself one...

I don't believe he's a socialist but he adds to the confusion by calling himself one... That's an empirical observation and not a normative one. Also, the Scandinavian nations he holds out as socialist aren't. They are nominally capitalist/market economies which are heavily regulated and buttressed by a robust safety net that is supported by progressive taxation.

[JDPriestly]

62. Have you ever lived in one of those counries? How do you know they aren't socialist.

They have been governed by democratic socialist parties or labor parties and adopted and maintained some of the policies of those parties. That's why it is OK to refer to them as democratic socialist.

Countries privatize and then socialize depending on the economy.

The pendulum swung toward socialization then toward privatization. It's probably due for a swing toward socialization again. The Greek crisis may set off that movement.

Bernie is a democratic socialist. That is very different from a communist. The word democratic is a key part of the party name.

But the programs that Bernie is advocating for, universal pre-school, maternity and paternity leave, a recognized right to health and dental care, better Social Security benefits, breaking up the too big too fail banks, strict regulation of the business sector especially the financial sector, policies to save the environment, more money for schools, less money for the military, free college for qualified students, etc., are considered to be the policies favored by the socialist parties in Europe.

Here is a list of the parties in Sweden:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Sweden

The Swedish Social Democratic Party, Sveriges Socialdemokratiska arbetarparti, is the most powerful party based on that website's chart. Under the parliamentary form of government, it is possible that a coalition of other parties is actually governing. But the Social Democratic Party has more seats in Parliament than any other one party.

Here is the list of the parties in Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Germany

The Christian Democratic Union of Germany, the conservatives, are governing at the federal level.

Note that the Socialist Parties are second.

List of parties in Norway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Norway

The parties in Austria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Austria

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. . Have you ever lived in one of those counries? How do you know they aren't socialist?

Have you ever lived in one of those counries? How do you know they aren't socialist?

A person doesn't have to live somewhere to know their form of government or economic system. If we accept that as truth we might as well close down schools, libraries, and stop reading, ergo:

"I don't believe he's a socialist but he adds to the confusion by calling himself one... That's an empirical observation and not a normative one.

Also, the Scandinavian nations he holds out as socialist aren't. They are nominally capitalist/market economies which are heavily regulated and buttressed by a robust safety net that is supported by progressive taxation. "

-DemocratSinceBirth

Socialism-

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,

as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system





Sweden-

Sweden is a competitive mixed economy featuring a generous universal welfare state financed through relatively high income taxes that ensures that income is distributed across the entire society, a model sometimes called the Nordic model.[14] Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden


Norway-

The economy of Norway is a developed mixed economy with state-ownership in strategic areas of the economy. The government controls 31.6% of publicly listed companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway



Denmark has a diverse, mixed economy, but one that relies heavily on human resources, as there are few valuable natural resources available, except mature oil and gas wells in the North Sea. Cooperatives form a large part of some sectors, be it in housing, agriculture or retail. Foundations play a large role as owners of private sector companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark


As I said " They (the Scandinavian nations) are nominally capitalist/market economies which are heavily regulated and buttressed by a robust safety net that is supported by progressive taxation.

[JDPriestly]

114. Of course, I would call Bernie more of a Realist than a Socialist, but

he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

About this:

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,

In Germany, not only is a larger proportion of the economy government owned, subsidized or heavily regulated, but large companies are required by law to include elected representatives of their workers on their boards of directors for certain purposes.

The German model of co-determination is unique. Formulated at the end of World War II, it was applied first in the coal and steel industries of West Germany following the war and gradually expanded to other sectors. Co-determination in Germany is regulated by the Co-operative Management Law (1951), amended in 1976, and the Workers Committee Law (1952), amended in 1972. Within the framework of the 1976 reform, the government broadened the laws' applicability to all firms throughout the German economy employing more than 2,000 workers. The German co-determination law (Mitbestimmungsgesetz) forms part of the bedrock of German industrial and company policy. It requires that just under half of companies' supervisory boards' members be representatives of workers. German company law is curious to an English speaker's eye, because it has not one but two boards of directors. Shareholders and trade unions elect members of a supervisory board (Aufsichtsrat). The chairman of the supervisory board, with a casting vote, is always a shareholder representative under German law. The supervisory board is meant to set the company's general agenda. The supervisory board then elects a management board (Vorstand), which is actually charged with the day-to-day running of the company. The management board is required to have one worker representative (Arbeitsdirektor). In effect, shareholder voices still govern the company for a number of reasons, but not least because the supervisory board's vote for the management will always be a majority of shareholders. Co-determination in Germany operates on three organisational levels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

Here is a list of companies owned by the German government:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_in_Germany

Just a few. One is very interesting: the Hofbräu München‎ (3 C, 13 F

That's a brewery, a beer company.

Bernie is not suggesting that the US own a brewery or other similar businesses. Just thought that is an amusing fact -- that beer is so German that the government owns a brewery.

More about the organization of the German economy.

http://www.photius.com/countries/germany/government/germany_government_business_and_industr~1423.html

Unions are a part of German society. Worker organizations date back to the guilds of the Middle Ages. A Scott Walker in Germany, that is a person who suppresses union activity would not get anywhere in Germany.

I don't know how it is in Scandinavia, but it is probably similar. Friction between workers and bosses in the workplace is not the problem in Germany that it is here.

On the other hand, as you say, Germany is a capitalist system. It is a capitalist system that has strongly organized unions and working people. It also has strongly organized business organizations.

But even now, although labeled as conservative, Angela Merkel's government in Germany does many of the things that Bernie wants to do here. Healthcare is a right in Germany. Organizing a union is a right. Free college (or just about free) is a right for qualified students. When I was there, pre-school (excellent by the way) was free for half-days beginning at age 3. Probably even better now. Maternity leave was generous. The government paid Kindergeld, a stipend for each child, whether rich or poor. I figured it covered the diapers. The schools were, of course, excellent. In the last period under Angela Merkel, Germany instituted a program that gave incentives to people to put solar panels on their roofs. That was quite successful. Although Northern Germany is relatively rainy and in the winter cold, Germany produces a lot of energy from the solar panels.

These are the kinds of things that Bernie wants to do. Hillary agrees with many of them but labels herself a capitalist while Bernie labels himself a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist. To me it is the same.

I consider myself to support capitalism, but I agree with Bernie on his policies of acting for the good of individuals in society cooperatively through government. This is especially important in depressed areas in which people are unemployed. Areas like that cannot pick themselves up by their bootstraps. In a capitalist system, you need capital to establish businesses, hire people, etc. In my view the government should do more to provide that capital in depressed areas and should do more to make sure that a share of profits are paid as taxes so that we avoid the situation we have now in which an excessive portion of the growth in profits go mostly to the rich, and work and effort by those who are not so rich is not adequately rewarded.

[Bohemianwriter]

109. We are Social Democrats...

in Scandinavia.

We are constitutional monarchies with a parliamentary system to ad to the confusion. Goes for all three Scandinavian countries.

But do NOT confuse democratic socialism with social democracy.

Bernie Sanders is a social democrat. Democratic socialist sounds...strange...

I think social democrat "sells" better than "democratic socialist", and closer to the truth.

[appalachiablue]

130. THat is just what I thought- Social Democrats until several months ago there was either Socialist

or sometimes Democratic Socialist applied not only to Bernie but to others, people and places. Social Democrats not only sounds 'better' I think it is more accurate. Also, I have heard Bernie say that he is not a liberal, recently. I took that to mean the kind of liberal (centrist Dems.) we have in US politics for the last 20 years especially, rather than in terms of an intellectual and cultural POV. In any case I consider myself a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT! Nice ring to it too. Appreciate your remarks.

[gregcrawford]

41. The definition of socialism has been grotesquely distorted...

... to suit the malign purposes of the corporatists on both sides of the aisle. And make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is a corporatist down to her DNA.

Socialism means that the government puts the interests of the people - society - ahead of the interests of corporations. And that shit don't fly in the Corporate States of America!

Corporatism is the most virulent cancer this country - indeed, the entire world - has ever faced. There can be no greater cause than its total annihilation. Anything less will mean the extermination of life on this planet one hell of a lot sooner than anyone cares to contemplate.

[Indydem]

115. No. That is NOT what socialism means.

You can repackage it and repurpose it to suit whatever it is your goals are, but socialism already HAS a definition.

America doesn't WANT socialism. You can point to Swedens robust safety net and watch as the rest of America learns where the 55% tax bracket starts and how many POC live in Bernies Wonderland.

If Bernie Sanders doesn't want socialism, why has he always had "socialist" as part of his party identifier? That's like a repuke saying "well I was a neo-nazi, but really what I want is a well run state like the nazis had." These are the opposite ends of the political spectrum and you would attack, relentlessly (and rightfully so) a r who had been a neonazi.

Bernie has baggage. Lots of it. Those who continue to kneel at the alter of hero worship will have a bitter pill to swallow when Hilary wins the nomination and they are forced to vote for her in November.

[gregcrawford]

122. Wow.

Trying to provoke me into making intemperate remarks so some twit can squeal ALERT? You aren't worth the effort.

[Indydem]

145. Can't you play nice?

Unable to make a temperate remark to back your position? That's not MY problem.

Learn to make clear concise arguments through your anger or you will always lose.

You probably already have, if Bernie is your guy.

[frylock]

128. And they are forced to vote for her in November? Forced?

or nah.

[Indydem]

146. Well, I guess if that's your position...

I was a Hillary supporter in 2008 and gladly voted for Barack in the general. I never felt he was nailed down enough on his positions, and a little too big on abstract things (hope and change), but I cast my vote for the Democrat.

If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter and you are already planning on not voting for the Democratic candidate, why are you even on this forum? You obviously aren't a Democrat, so why pretend to be?

There are a lot of places for people to express their political beliefs; perhaps a sub reddit would be more to your liking?

DU will be a better place once all of you unicorn and pony wanting progressives leave after Bernie is destroyed and shown to be the sad sack he is.

[redstateblues]

135. Merriam Webster is plotting against Bernie!

[Indydem]

147. A Conspiracy!

There always is one when people who live in a fantasy world don't get their way.

[SoapBox]

42. I don't give a crap about the label.

I give a crap because Bernie is Bernie!

And that is what matters...the likes of FuksFakeNews and HRC's Trash Machine can trash talk all they want...it's his message that matters.

The storm is growing every minute and it cannot be stopped.

Go Bernie!

[jwirr]

46. Very good article. Hopefully this iwll be well distributed to many voters.

[dmosh42]

47. By Fux news standards, both Eisenhower & T. Roosevelt would be socialists!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. "Tyranny, they assume, is something only the state does."

Meanwhile, they treat employees like they're vermin.

[hifiguy]

51. Those who benefit from the status quo, "Democrats" and Repukes alike

are going to fight those who represent the people with every weapon at their command.

[AOR]

96. +1

[Jack Rabbit]

53. "Surrendering political power to corporate interests is a form of tyranny, too."

I'm surprised that after 35 years of neoliberalism (Reagonomics, if you prefer) that anyone needs to be told that. However, having been challenged by well meaning and even respected long time posters that I'm being alarmist for saying that the TPP is the end of American democracy, when it would require the US to yield to the will of a panel of unelected corporate shysters in a secret investment/state dispute settlement process, I know that this is, unfortunately, the case.

[WillyT]

59. Yep... Did You Catch THIS:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026972238

[WillyT]

60. And THIS:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026973090

[Populist_Prole]

75. I've argued with ignorant conservative dolts about that very issue

They're always bleating "freedom" and complain about government being a threat to their "freedoms" yet they knuckle under and kiss corporate ass every chance they get.

They'd bemoan authority and high-handed behavior that is adverse to them when they think it's "the government" doing it. The same exact high-handedness from business is excused with utter glibness.

I think I know why this is:

They're full of shit.

[George II]

57. "Everyone is scrambling to make sense of the Bernie Sanders phenomenon."

Not everyone, and I don't see people (at least here, even if not pro-Sanders) trying to "marginalize" Sanders.

What I see is people recognizing who he is and what he's capable of doing. He has some very good ideas, but he will have a very, very difficult time winning a general election (indeed, he'll have a difficult time winning more than a few regional primaries)

Think back 12 years to Howard Dean's campaign. He was a very popular, charismatic campaigner (coincidentally from Vermont!), attracting large crowds who wanted to see him and hear him speak. But when it came down to actually pulling the lever for him or filling in the circle for him, people found it difficult to do so. After his big build up, he flamed out in a few weeks once the primaries began.

[RufusTFirefly]

64. Oh, puhleeze! Did Dean flame out? Or was he "flamed out"?

The scream scene was shown an estimated 633 times by cable and broadcast news networks in just four days following the incident, a number that does not include talk shows and local news broadcasts. However, those who were in the actual audience that day insist that they were not aware of the infamous "scream" until they returned to their hotel rooms and saw it on TV.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_scream

Apparently, you can't trust your own eyes and ears until you see and hear things on TV.

Think about it: At least 633 times in just four days. That works out to once every 10 minutes! Don't you think that was a little excessive?

Let's face facts: The Dean campaign wasn't perfect. No campaign is. Yet other candidates have managed to survive tone-deaf, milquetoast, disingenuous, pandering campaigns and an appalling string of gaffes. (I could name names but I don't want to be alerted on.) Dean didn't flame out; he was mugged by the media and their billionaire benefactors because they found even a moderately liberal, business friendly candidate to be threatening. And now they're getting ready to do it again with Bernie -- their worst nightmare.

[Indydem]

117. Howard Dean's candidacy was over before the scream.

He came in THIRD in Iowa, a caucus he was supposed to do well in. He had 18% of the vote to @70% being captured by Kerry and Edwards.

Dean was a clown.

The media showed him in his makeup.

[RufusTFirefly]

121. Thanks for the cut-and-paste wisdom

Is that you, Rahm?

[George II]

139. Had nothing to do with the scream. He was interesting, had good things to say....

...about his policies, and was (IS) charismatic. But he had no chance of winning the nomination.

Ergo, the parallels with Bernie Sanders.

[boston bean]

67. My husband has never heard of him and we live in MA.

[George II]

68. Ooops, one more less than "everyone"!

[RufusTFirefly]

70. Wow! I trust you're not bragging about this.

For your husband's sake, I hope Kim Kardashian or Dr. Oz decides to run.

[beam me up scottie]

84. No kidding.

Any liberal who cares about our country and hasn't head of Bernie Sanders should rethink where they get their info.

He's been fighting for us in Washington for years.

[Trajan]

79. I could swear you post everyday

In order to denigrate and marginalize Bernie Sanders ...

You are still not on my ignore list ... Not sure why ...

[Nitram]

151. I agree, George, the Bernie "phenomenon" is not very difficult to make sense of.

Hyperbole rules among the Bernistas.

[Persondem]

66. Kind of pathetic how folks lap this crap up.

Bernie has run as a socialist, calls himself a "democratic socialist" in the European model. Link

This paragraph is such crap as to discredit the whole article and the author and anyone who takes it seriously.

"That Sanders is dubbed a “Marxist” or a “socialist” is a testament both to the corruption of language, Fox News and the insidious propaganda machine in this country. The truth is that capitalism has won; no one seriously disputes that – certainly no one in government. “Socialism” is now an epithet, something conservatives hurl at people who challenge corporate power – the term has been emptied of any real content."

Sanders embraces socialism. His first political party - Liberty Union - were socialists. Nothing inherently wrong with being socialist but to assign the labeling of Sanders as socialist to some sinister cabal of Fox "News" and some unnamed Clintonistas is ridiculous.

[Jefferson23]

76. He aims to be the game changer..going after the status quo which leaves very little in meaningful

change for the 99%..and I don't mean only income inequality. Look at climate change too,
who calls the shots?

Our system is polluted, period and that is why he is a threat to both sides.

[orpupilofnature57]

77. It's what they did to Smedley Butler, Robert Oppenheimer, Richard Clark, or anyone telling the Truth

they can't afford .

[hifiguy]

100. ^This in a nutshell^

[Enthusiast]

81. Kicked and recommended!

[marym625]

88. K&R!

[rsexaminer]

105. Republicans voting for Bernie?

It looks like even some Republicans are starting to follow Bernie.

Bernie Sanders is making such an impact that even some Republicans are ditching their party to support the Independent Senator from Vermont. There's even a Facebook page dedicated to Republicans who support Sanders.

http://www.examiner.com/article/even-republicans-are-now-jumping-on-the-bernie-sanders-bandwagon

[Thinkingabout]

106. Plot to marginalize Bernie? Don't need to have a plot to marginalize Bernie, if he can't sell

himself then he is responsible for the marginalization.

[cantbeserious]

108. Why Anything That The HRC Team Does Is Not A Surprise - Is Not A Surprise

eom

[Babel_17]

110. It's good to see the perception of Sanders firming up

This was not a given and it's the long years of his consistency and taking a stand that have been a major influence in this happening. Senator Sanders sticks to his message, and as people hear it and talk him up, we get further away from the opportunity to pigeon hole and ignore him.

People are hearing enough so as to demand that other candidates engage with the issues Sanders has raised. They are unprepared for that, and they flounder in their attempts to brush Sanders aside as irrelevant. The issues, they Bern.

[whereisjustice]

118. "Everyone is scrambling to make sense of the Bernie Sanders phenomenon..."

At some point, enough people are covered in the shit that both of our political parties spew all over the middle class and below that there aren't enough smiling photos of Clinton or Obama to cover the putrid stench of creeping economic conservatism within the Democratic Party. And don't think that "socially liberal" is the trade-off. You cannot ever achieve equality without the economic means to sustain a decent quality of life.

What the Clinton's have done has NOT been good for the nation (supporting banking deregulation, supporting outsourcing jobs to Mexico and Asia, supporting welfare "reform", along with a questionable performance as Sec. of State that doubled as a personal fund raising gig).

Her tortured flip-flops and apologies on seminal issues like Iraq, TPP and gay marriage prove that Clinton is an unreliable, self-serving candidate who over-complicates every political principal to optimize every difficult situation to her own immediate benefit.

You won't hear Clinton speak out against the wrongs most of this nation has endured over the last 30 years because she has personally helped design them and profited from them.

Seriously - how courageous is a political leader who defends corporations like Walmart, wants to send millions of US jobs to Asia and supports Wall Street deregulation?

I can't tell if it's Stockholm syndrome or just great marketing that so many Democrats think she is the entitled heir apparent to the presidency.

Bernie's message is so transparently genuine and truthful that the slimy-slick political operatives protecting the status quo in BOTH parties don't know what to do. It's like a language they cannot understand. The establishment is reacting out of a primal sense of fear that their way of life is being threatened by someone who operates without layers of lies and double-speak.

[geretogo]

119. Clarity in this country of lies and half truths is just so refreshing .

[nikto]

120. Friends are important

[Duppers]

126. K&RRRRRRRRR

[AgingAmerican]

136. Can definitely see it on DU

The last few days they have been spamming the GDP forum. Must have gotten marching orders.

[PatrickforO]

140. Great article. But we aren't gonna let Faux 'News' and Clinton surrogates marginalize

Bernie, are we?

I just talked to another person about Bernie today...

[tblue37]

152. He is an FDR Democrat, with or without the official party registration.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party's leadership and power brokers are mostly Rockefeller Republicans, even though the rank and file members of both parties, as well as the American people in general, continue to be FDR Democrats in their beliefs and their desires for government policy. Even more unfortunately, despite widespread preference--again, in both parties and among Americans as a whole--for FDR's New Deal policies, and even for most of his intended Fair Deal policies, too many Americans are too exhausted, distracted, and uninformed to be able to resist the relentless propaganda pumped out by the oligarchs, so they end up voting against their own interests, or not voting at all.

[merrily]

156. Thanks, Willy T. The more sunlight on this issue, the better.

See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844 Be sure to check out the replies.

[DirkGently]

157. "Social democrat" is the term.

Surely a grownup country like America (haha?) can grasp the difference.

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving the regulation of the economy in the general interest, welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, interventions to promote greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to parliamentary democracy.[1][2][3] Social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater egalitarian, democratic and solidaristic outcomes.[4] "Social democracy" is often used in this manner to refer to the social and economic policies that were prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century.[5][6]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[AlbertCat]

161. to let the market work its will.

The "free market" term is just as meaningless as "socialism" these days.


What is "free" about a market that subsidizes corporations that are making a profit?

If you have a free market....companies are on their own, no? If Exxon has to charge $7.00 a gallon for gas to make a profit without any government assistance, then so be it. Would such a thing survive a "free market" or would people find something else?

How can you have a "free market" with government help to some corporations? With exemptions from rules "everyone" is supposed to follow?

The "free market" BS is just as misleading as the "socialist" BS.

[yodermon]

163. nowhere in the article do the words "Democratic Socialist" appear.

which is how Bernie Sanders describes himself.

After reading the wiki entry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism ) I think he is better described as a "Social Democrat" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy ) as was pointed out upthread. I don't think Bernie is going to engage in semantics on this issue however.

[raouldukelives]

165. Bernie believes capitalism can be saved from itself and I agree.

I personally find him to be most genuine democratic capitalist in the running.

The only reason he appears as a socialist to some is that they are so far right on economic policy, basic capitalism for the common good and the good of the commons is disallowed and painted as extremist by those who throw weight behind multinational corporations.

"America, today, is much closer to a plutocracy than a democracy. Corporations write our laws, buy our elections, and dictate political discourse. That’s nakedly anti-democratic, and Sanders is one of the few candidates proposing to do something about it."

Time is wearing thin. Failure is not an option. Every dollar in Wall St is a dollar against democracy.