2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWould America elect a socialist to be President ?
Um, no. Why do you ask?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nice try but we already heard this talking point a brazillion times.
Keep up.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...good luck with that.
HappyPlace
(568 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The intercept will be every bit as awesome as it was in 2008!
Thanks!
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... the impotance of electability an how it's importance increases as the process proceeds .
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Perception only counts with the word "socialism" but not with the word "emails." Ya gotta keep up with these things, HP.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)If Bernie is a socialist, then fuck it, I guess I'm a socialist too. I could care less if he called himself a pig-fucker....he'd still have my vote. I vote policy and record over silly "labels".
redwitch
(14,944 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... because they are predictive of direction, intent and future policy decisions. Current policy positions on specific issues are important but incomplete. It is reasonable and entirely rational to judge a candidate on her idelogical tendencies, which are indicated by idelogical labels.
In fact, it would be unreasonable to ignore them. Especially pig-fucker.
Response to PosterChild (Reply #93)
Name removed Message auto-removed
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... are less important than labels applied to one's self. Bernie is a self professed socialist , and presumably he means to say something meaningful about himself to others by so doing. That's why the label is important.
Setting that aside, labels applied to others, even though they may be smears, are important also. They are assertions about the intentions and future direction a candidate might take. That is a legitimate concern, perhaps more of a concern than specific policy positions on current issues. Labels are the linguistic vehicle we use to discuss these concerns.
Response to PosterChild (Reply #93)
Name removed Message auto-removed
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).. no one is demeaning him by placing a label upon him. He calls himself a socialist. It is entirely proper to refer to bernie as a socialist, since that is how he characterizes himself.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,674 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... "black" now polls at 92 - don't known what it was back 8 years ago, but I bet it was better than the "socialist " category .
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And the GOP portray President Obama and most otehr Dems as socialists anyway
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... the whole idea of idelogical labels is that it DOESN'T depend on their individual .
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The GOP applies that ideological label on all individuals who happen to be Democrats.
Doesn't scare away people in droves, Only those who would not vote for a Dem anyway.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....between a slur and a label. In this case it is the candidate who is calling him self a socialist . It will be taken serriously.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)http://www.nationalreview.com/article/222433/hillary-clinton-socialist-still-deroy-murdock
http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/hillary-clinton-the-great-socialist-warmonger/5962
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/04/hillary-clinton-crony-socialist-for-president/
http://newsl.org/2015/07/wealth-for-all-hillary-the-socialist-clinton-proposes-tax-cuts-for-profit-sharing/
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....calls himself a socialist. People understand that the gop is sluring dems and discount it. They won't discount it when the candidate brags about it himself.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)and doesn't for good reason: not only does Obama not actually practice socialism, but he doesn't use the kind of Occupy rhetoric Bernie uses, he is not for gutting welfare reform, helped out our financial institutions, and doesn't call himself a socialist, nor did he. In 2008 it didn't stick not only because of most of the reasons I mentioned, but Wall Street didn't mind him.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)I don't think so. Doesn't mean he was a conservative. A conservative thinks fetuses are alive and taxes on the rich should be lower to trickle down. Obama didn't.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)No worries well have a candidate who does. The oposition won't even have to try,
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What does that word mean to you?
And have you heard any of Bernie's speeches?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...to them voting public ? My guessing is, "Venezuela". Or "North Korea".
In any case, you can run for presentation , or you can run to teach them true meaning if socialism . But you can't do both.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie makes very clear the ISSUES he is running on. Free college education (post-secondary state schools), single payer health care as in Western European countries (that I lived in), government investment in safer and better infrastructure, breaking up the too big to fail banks, a strong defense, but an audit of the military expenditures, etc. You can listen to his speeches and visit FeeltheBern.com to read about all his proposals.
I hope you do.
He is not pointing to Venezuela or North Korea.
When Americans hear what Bernie has to say, they agree with him.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... who says Make America Great, and a Dem who says Make America France. Game over.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)No matter the label he carries or that the media attaches to him.
See this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251555615
That links you to an article discussing Bernie's uncanny ability to foresee disasters before they occur.
The must-read article on his track record of prescience:
http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/06/bernard-bernie-sanders-the-political-foresight-champion.html
Bernie warning about entering into the Iraq War.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war
Proven right.
Bernie warning about the gambling on Wall Street and the crisis it would and did lead to:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4537613/bernie-sanders-predicts-wall-st-collapse
Note that this c-span video is dated 1998!
A couple of times in a century, we get the opportunity to elect a true leader, one who has the judgment and wisdom to excite us with new vision and guide us with wise caution. Bernie is that opportunity.
When Abraham Lincoln was elected president, the country was divided. As I understand it, although he did not favor slavery, he never intended to force slave states to abolish it. The argument was about the ability of slaveholders to pursue and capture slaves in the North. That is my understanding.
But the remarkable thing about Lincoln was that he had the moral courage and the intuition and the foresight to see that protecting the Union was our foremost priority and that slavery as an institution was too great a danger to our Union and to the rights of man and of the slaves to tolerate.
He was a leader, a wise man, a courageous man.
But to much of the country, his ideas were horrifying. To be an abolitionist was in the South akin to being a Communist in the US.
Bernie is not a Communist. He is a Democratic Socialist. There is a huge difference. Western Europe even when conservatives are in charge as in Germany, still provide free college tuition and single-payer healthcare to their people. They do not entangle their military in crazy adventures without thinking about how they will govern the countries after they have ventured into them.
Sanders is that kind of cautious Democratic Socialist. A lot of Americans will like his ideas.
He is 73 years old, an age at which even Jeb Bush thinks he is entitled to retire and enjoy his life. But he is willing to go on and serve his country and the American people. He has great wisdom, years of experience and a powerful bunch of courage and energy, and I sure do hope for the sake of our country, that we elect him in 2016.
He is the first and only presidential candidate who has inspired me to this degree in my life, and I myself am 72. I have never seen a candidate of the quality of Bernie Sanders.
We will be so lucky if we can elect him.
He is fiscally somewhat conservative in my view. He has served on the Budget Committee. He may be the ranking member. He said in his speech to the DLC that one of his first goals will be to order an audit of the military.
If you have ever talked with someone who handled military contracts or did military work, you will understand why that is a good idea. The process encourages spendthrift use of tax money. It is very likely that we can have the same or a better defense than we now have for less money. Bernie is not a spendthrift foolish person.
I think that electing him is the chance of the century for America.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....but he sure made a bone-headed move by adopting and keeping the socialist label.
* With reference to "man", you left your self open to quite a few "witty retorts". Just saying
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)One of my pet peeves with the English language is our failure to use terms, maybe even to have modern terms that are gender neutral.
Man, which is related to the word "mankind" and is similar to the word "Mann" in German which IS gender neutral. I could have used the word "person," but it seemed too unspecific, too general and impersonal to express my point.
I enjoy discussion and civil argument, so it is rather difficult to get me riled. So if someone wants to make a witty retort, I will probably laugh along.
Hey. No problem.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)who would love America to be more like France or other countries in Europe. It may not be enough for this election but the old zenophobes are dying off.
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... the American people don't like socialism. For goods reason.
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)Power grid. Basically all public infrastructure. I'm never going to agree with you. Ta ta...
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:01 AM - Edit history (3)
....we can't forget the roads!
Heck, the Roman Empire was socialist !! What with the roads and aqueducts they basically invented socialism !!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And then there are agricultural subsidies and flood insurance and public transportation. Hey, the railroads that were built across the country on land granted by the federal government. Then there are the dams and the parks, and the list goes on and on.
When we citizens work together to improve our country and help provide for each other's needs, it's a good thing.
The things we do as individuals are also good, like starting families, working, starting and running businesses, organizing clubs, churches, charities. They are all good.
It isn't either or. It is a matter of the best way to organize a particular part of our lives at a particular time.
You need not fear. The Constitution protects our rights to private property and requires that the government pay just compensation if it takes property that belongs to us.
We have more to fear form the civil forfeiture laws and incursions on our civil rights, many of which are condoned by the courts or even passed into law by our legislatures than we do from the proposals that Bernie Sanders is recommending.
Socialism covers a lot of territory, and it is probably impossible to have government without having some very popular, beloved programs that could be defined as socialist.
It's really not an important issue.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).,,, other than, perhaps, a gop president.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in 2014 in races with Blue Dog and other conservative Democrats or whether we not only get Democrats to the polls but add new votes to the numbers that support Democrats.
When I go to Bernie meetings, I see new faces, people who have never been active in politics, maybe not even voted, as well as a few who have worked on a campaign before.
Bernie is attracting new voters. I'm not even sure that the polls at this time are reflecting these potential voters who have previously shunned the Democratic Party.
If I recall, the candidates in 2014 who won, who excited voters enough to get out and vote were considered more to the left in great part. Al Franken kept his Senate seat. Others who strongly stand for traditional FDR policies, did better than those of the right, those who were too ready to compromise Democratic ideas with the Republican ones.
That can be interpreted two ways -- either that the electorate really leaned to the right or that the candidates on the "left" inspired voters to get to the polls because they felt that their vote could make a difference in Congress and their own lives.
I think the explanation is the latter. And when I meet with other Bernie supporters, I get the sense that they have decided that Bernie's ideas will improve their lives.
It's about time we catch up with other parts of the world on issues like family leave and universal health insurance and debtless post-secondary education, etc.
We are so far behind other countries.
Call is socialism. Call it common sense. What is in a name?
This is the age of computers. Computers do jobs we used to do. They do them for us, all of us. Why shouldn't we all benefit from the time saved, the money earned, when computers work instead of us?
Or should those who "own" the computers earn all the wages from these senseless automatons? It's a real question?
Because conservatives cannot on the one hand require women to birth as many babies as possible and on the other, replace the work the babies might one day do with machinery that costs very little to maintain and thereby force the moms and babies to live on less than it takes to just have a roof over their heads, food on their plates and the basic necessities of life. That is not going to work very long.
An ever growing human population, less work, and all the profits going to a relatively small group of people? Meanwhile those who earn the least are taxed at one of the highest rates when you consider total income?
That equation just does not work. And that is what conservatives, and to a lesser degree even Hillary are offering us.
Do you think the word "socialism" is really appropriate when you are talking about the world we have today in which corporations operate on the international level while working people are constrained to try to make a living in the confines of a nation?
I think the application of socialism as a theory traditionally was thought of as "nationalizing" production. That was the old idea. That is virtually impossible today because production is multi-national. The wheel is made in Mexico, the chassis in South Korea, the gears someplace else. How would anyone nationalize that production even if they wanted to.
Socialism today in my definition (since the traditional one would never work in today's economy) means sharing wealth so through taxation and the funding of government programs benefits everyone, keeps people alive, prepares them to contribute to society. That's what it means to me. And that is how it works in European and some other countries.
I might improve my definition in the future because I am thinking of it as I write it, but I do not think that anyone who uses the word socialism is thinking of the socialism of Marx or Lenin. The modern economy is not compatible with any such idea, and people have evolved beyond the limitations of communication and understanding of the world of the times those thinkers lived in.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)The ones paid for by taxing the fuel sold at privately owned gas stations, used mostly for the vehicles of privately owned companies of all types (as well as by the individuals receiving profits, paychecks, or pensions from these companies)?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Ooooooo, don't trust those Scary Socialists.....oooooooo, they're going to steal out babies oooooo
That's Red Scare crap from the 50's. Most people, except hard core conservatives, are more receptive to a mild socialist -- actually an FDR Liberal -- like Sanders once they hear him speak. The rest are unwinnable anyway.
The public would never support Gay Marriage either.
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm actually very encouraged to see it here. It means his campaign is having an impact
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... of tge democratic candidate. What us paranoid about that? Let alone "bircher".
Response to PosterChild (Reply #11)
Post removed
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Being a Hillary supporter and pointing out electability issues does not make one a fascist . This is an over the top slur.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)If you support the current status quo, you support fascism.
Sanders is against the status quo and therefore against fascism. He has my vote.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)On Fri Aug 28, 2015, 11:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Posterchild for fascism. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=554863
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Being a Hillary supporter and pointing out electability issues does not make one a fascist . This is an over the top slur.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 28, 2015, 11:42 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Please make your point another way than calling another poster a poster child for fascism.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Slur.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
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.
Cha
(297,154 posts)a "Socialist".. does not mean everyone else is a fascist.
George II
(67,782 posts)...."fascism", "communism", and every other "ism" they can come up with in a few months.
Cha
(297,154 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If they listen to Bernie and you ask them whether they want what he wants, they will say yes.
Socialism is a word. It's like Christianity. It means different things to different people.
Bernie's platform which he states in every speech is what Americans want.
That's what matters, not what label he uses for himself.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... more than you think. In fact it will ensure that most people will not even bother to understand his platform. The label tells them enough.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)A lot of professional people are. The middle class is in decline, and Bernie is the only one who is really responding to that concern or is believable when he talks about that problem.
CItizens United and the overbearing role of big money and corporations in the political process is a greater concern to Americans today, especially young Americans, than socialism.
China is a Communist country with a Communist government, but we trade with it all the time, and in spite of the Communist label, our billionaires invest a lot of their money and make a lot of their products there.
I don't think the socialist label is nearly the problem for Bernie that you would think that the Communist label and reality is for China.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Which is why nominating Sanders is political suicide for the party.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)You don't get that time back, after all, and the outcome is the same even if you do nothing.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... in helping others to increase their understanding and in educating them. And in learning , understanding and being educated myself . So I don't consider this to be a waste of time.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)But TRUE too.
Doesn't get any better than that.
jfern
(5,204 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... and agreed with them.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Of course, try explaining that to the ignorant masses.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)For instance, vegetables are all essentially vegetables, but broccoli is just not the same as avocados.
Humans are social animals and to survive and thrive we do have to cooperate and work together. As you sugest, all socio-economic systems are social in nature.
That, however, does not make them all socialist. Socialism is a distinct socioeconomic system that has characteristics and consequences different from other competing ideologies. It is entirely proper to distinguish it from the alternatives and towards judge it on it's merits in contrast to the alternatives.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The ignorant masses couldn't tell you what socialism is, so they sure as hell aren't in position to speak one way or the other about it.
As the Wikipedia pages reads, "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy." Or, as the International Encyclopedia of Political Science puts it, "Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
The US isn't purely one -ism or another, but it's foolish to deny the great extent to which it is a socialist system.
jfern
(5,204 posts)I support public schools, public roads, public sidewalks, and public parks.
There goes that argument.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I'm American and I'm voting for Sanders.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)DEMOCRATIC Socialist.
Not Socialist.
At least provide honest information.
revmclaren
(2,515 posts)5. In a speech he gave at the National Committee for Independent Political Action in New York City on June 22, 1989, reprinted in the December 1989 issue of the socialist publication Monthly Review: In Vermont, everybody knows that I am a socialist and that many people in our movement, not all, are socialists. And as often as not and this is an interesting point that is the honest-to-God truth what people will say is, I dont really know what socialism is, but if youre not a Democrat or a Republican, youre OK with me. Thats true. And I think there has been too much of a reluctance on the part of progressives and radicals to use the word socialism.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265#ixzz3kAy40T4x
Damn easy-to-use Google!!!!
Cha
(297,154 posts)not entertain such thoughts.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)
.... doesn't know or care what the difference between a "socialist" and a "democratic socialist" is. They aren't going to bother to find out and any attempt to explain it will just reinforce the message that he is a socialist.
And after reading the wiki article on "socialism" I've come to the conclusion that socialists don't know what the difference is either.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)revmclaren
(2,515 posts)See my post with linky things above...
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I'll be a good girl and leave you alone. This time.
revmclaren
(2,515 posts)Part time poster...full time lurker.
But I'll forgive you for your mistake...this time!
But please... Discredit sanders own words....
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)revmclaren
(2,515 posts)Was too busy in the real world ... The Obama campaign and all..
Night night...
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)his speech to the DNC today was RIGHT ON, and the points he makes are things most Americans agree with. Bernie is elevating the dialog, and I believe he can win, which is why I'm supporting him.
revmclaren
(2,515 posts)Just for the one statement He made...HE MADE...and i found in 30 seconds of google search.
Imagine what they will find. If they have a real reason to fear him politically.
Just my opinion and his own statement forever on the Internet.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)They haven't even started
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)revmclaren
(2,515 posts)We 'newbies' have to get a lot of rest or our fragile little fingers may get tired...
Oh, and Hillary 2016 and all that...
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)If Sanders wins the democratic nomination I believe he will win the Presidency. When democrats enthusiastically vote in general elections we win.
Bernie's not a 'socialist' like some outdated stereotype of Boris Badinov & Natasha. He's a democratic socialist who caucuses with the democratic party. He's proposing a massive jobs program (paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation), strengthening & expanding social security, publicly funded elections and health care for all.
He's calling for a grass roots movement to create a more participatory democracy. That's as American as apple pie.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)..... then he shouldn't claim to be one. But I guess it's too late now . Oh well.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Lots of people like socialist programs and progressive policies. Maybe there will be a socialist President some day. Probably not this year though. We will be lucky if we can preserve the reforms of the Obama administration in the face of the right-wing assault.
AOR
(692 posts)and stumping for Hillary Clinton...yeah that's a real winning leftist platform and class analysis going on in that post Starry Messenger. I'm sure Bill Foster would be proud. It's amazing how "communists" don't consider the Neoliberal policies of Clinton and Obama as part of the right-wing assault on the working class. Opportunism and identity politics abound for the new breed of liberal "communists." Lmao
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)start the revolution any day now. If you get any more leftist, you might be able to winnow it down to two. Kisses!
AOR
(692 posts)very interesting considering how much time you spent there espousing leftist credentials. I'm not a member of the Bell. I followed the writers there - including you - for many years though. Asked TA and Anax and a few others for permission to use some of their writing because it's that good and presents clarity. Probably the best forum on the net for leftist analysis in my opinion. Mileage may vary I guess. Maybe next you will tell me that the Bell is a right-wing front group posing as leftists. Heard that before many times from the people in your little DU circle of "Neoliberal radicals" that you are fully on board with.
As an observer I must admit that something was never quite right about the supposed "leftist activism" in some of your posts, because it wasn't leftist in any way, shape, or form. It was reactionary, "New Left", identity politics horseshit to the core and now you reveal in full glory where you actually stand. You've lost your way and it's very sad. Own it.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Did more for socialism in the past week than you guys will do in the next decade. Please, take your confused myopia to someone else. I have no time for bitter sectarians.
AOR
(692 posts)the new rallying cry of the CPUSA Starry Messenger...? "New-Age communism" and identity politics as a political movement built around support of the savage Neoliberal policies of Barack Obama and the Clintons will build solidarity and free the struggling workers from savage economic exploitation and oppression...who knew ? Will there be a pamphlet available for the "bitter sectarians" so we can learn how it's done ?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Arrogant white boy "leftists" are as common as grains of sand. Saddest thing is that you think your opinion is in any way original, or that sniping is "leftist analysis." I will leave the rest for the short-sighted barrel of straw that it is. You can have the last word if it makes you feel better.
AOR
(692 posts)Arrogant "white boy leftists"...that is unbelievable that you would bring race into this. Truly pathetic on your part as there are no more fierce defenders of racial equality than many of the writers at the Bell. That is beyond all words that you would sink to that. Who the hell goes investigating on who is white and who is black or whatever at the Bell while taking in the analysis. Do you know who is white or who is a person of color there unless it's mentioned ? How does it fucking matter ? Unbelievable that you would go there. Talk about short-sighted bullshit. Your whole political world revolves around personal identities. How fucking sad is that Starry Messenger.
MFM008
(19,805 posts)we shall see.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Were there similar articles 8 years ago:
Would America elect an African-American to be President ?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....There have been socialist candidates running for president continously since before the turn of the 20th century. Well over a hundred years. And believe me, they've seen better days.
This isn't a new thing.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Response to PosterChild (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
George II
(67,782 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The GOP will call anyone who wins the nominee a "Socialist". We may as well have a nominee who knows how to own it.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-roosevelt-socialist-communist/
^snip^
"FDR was called a socialist and a communist."
Barack Obama on Monday, September 21st, 2009 in interview on "Late Night with David Letterman"
The president was accused of being "a socialist, not a Democrat." His plan was described as "undisguised state socialism." One critic, who controlled some powerful media outlets, suggested that communists had infiltrated the president's administration.
Those are some of the attacks that Franklin Delano Roosevelt faced in the 1930s attacks cited recently by President Barack Obama to emphasize that he's not unique.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Thanks for bringing this right-wing talking point to DU. It's not like anyone else has thought to do so.
Bernie attracts a broad spectrum of voters. It's one of his strengths as a candidate. He's polling well against the republican candidates. But thanks for your concern.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... for my concern than for bringing up "right wing talking points ". My concern is the electability of the Democratic candidate . That's a legitimate concern , not a "right wing talking point".
NCjack
(10,279 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Bet you'd like to keep 'em in the dark on that.
Sure you would.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... or you can teach them the differences between "socialism " and "democratic socialism ". But you can't do both .
In all honesty you can't do the latter at all because no one is really interested .
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)So, yeah.
Kinda not too smart of a question, eh, PosterChild?
You probably should hurry up and delete it before you become too famous?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... self proclaimed socialist ? I think not.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)What seems to go right over your head is the fact that the best things our government does are socialist things. To be in denial of that is really kinda weird. Thinkaboutit.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... was FDR a socialist, I asked if he was a self-proclaimed socialist. Was he?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I feel compelled to point out that as late as early 2007, more than 80% of poll respondents said they'd never see a black president in their lifetimes and a majority (I think it was 53%) said they would not vote for a black candidate. We see similar data as recently as 2010 for women.
Trendsetters always poll worse than they perform in the ballot box down the road.
Really though, that's an interesting one...if the GOP clown car is really out-of-gas and a majority of Americans won't vote for a woman or a socialist...then who exactly is going to get elected out of a race comprised only of candidates that people won't vote for?
A lot of people that say they wouldn't vote for a woman or a socialist are going to vote for a woman or a socialist if they're the Democratic nominee...just like they voted for a black man with a foreign-sounding name.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... washed up ideological dead end? Face it, socialist parties and candidates have been a round for a long, long, long time. Like, since the 19th century. This isn't anything new. If people had any inclination towards a socialist president we would have had one well before now.
By my count, FDR ran against four different socialist candidates . We know who won.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)But funny enough, people are asking questions...are their other religions than Capitalism? Are they more merciful?
The red scarers should be VERY nervous about that development...
David__77
(23,369 posts)A slight majority of Democrats respondents rated "socialism" favorably.
I would be among those, while at the same time, I have no useful definition of socialism. I understand it and "humanism"to be interchangeable. I do not think that the word "socialist" or "socialism" has too much usefulness. Some people said a lot about Obama being a socialist, FDR being a socialist, etc.
I don't see an issue here - not one for me. The idea of electing all sorts of "types" appears to be problematic in some respect. I'll vote for who I support.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... with "athiest" - just 4 points behind! Practically within the margin of error! With great ratings like that, maybe we should run a socialistic atheist! We'd sweep the election!
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... you find the prospect of a gop president to be frightening.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Why do you ask?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... I think you should do as you please! Go for it! Have fun! Take a stand! Make a difference !
Just don't expect to win the election.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)sorry Bernie.