Would America elect a socialist to be President ?

[JDPriestly]

138. Wbetber that happens or no depends on whether droves of Democrats stay home as they did

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.