Strange how the GOP still tries to scare by tagging "communist" and "socialist" (revolution, brainwash)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet Bernie Sanders describes himself as a Socialist and the rest of the Democrat candidates espouse Socialist policies or worse. I guess the OP is embarrassed of them. She should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
He doesnt. He describes himself as a democratic socialist and refers to social democratic policies which are commonplace all over the world.
Labels are meaningless given that you probably define socialism as concentration camps, starvation and dictatorship and he defines it as workers' rights, guaranteed health care for all, stronger labor unions and getting rid of big money in politics.
Plenty of big social democratic, FDR-type mainstream parties in Europe label themselves as socialist.
The GOP looks ahead in time and knows that their future is limited. Upcoming generations want no part of their agenda.
Expect them to get ever more desperate and strident as they approach the abyss. Expect them to double down on science denial, trickle-down and other failed policies they hold so dear.
Good insight on our current situation, and why people are turning to right-wing demagoguery- the system is broken and no longer works for ordinary people.
I am convinced the answer to Trump is someone like Bernie, who puts the interests of working-class Americans front-and-center, and doesn't take big money from Wall Street.
This practice is known as "Red-Baiting". Also called, "Reductio ad Stalinum". The Daughters of the American Revolution started using it in 1927, with their blacklisting attacks on people and it was continued by the infamous Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.
I have a background in philosophy and theology. My pastor played RaS months ago when I finally had a talk to him about Liberation Theology, and how it was more in keeping with the direction of modern theology in our denomination (Evangelical Lutheran) than the conservative evangelicalism he was peddling, which I have been trying to explain to him is ethically bankrupt in the wake of a post Nazi Germany world. As a result, I just stopped attending, not being able to get through to him that parading around images of gulags is not a fair response to critiques of capitalism.
People like that are extremely set in their ways and not likely to change. Decades of cold war propaganda designed to stiffle political dissent are to blame.
You may want to consider some Economics, Business, and Finance because that's what drives most of the arguments against socialism, communism and other economic schemes that OPPRESS people.
Labels are meaningless given that you probably define socialism as concentration camps, starvation and dictatorship and he defines it as workers' rights, guaranteed health care for all, stronger labor unions and getting rid of big money in politics.
Plenty of big social democratic, FDR-type mainstream parties in Europe label themselves as socialist.
FDR was a Racist that had KKK members in his Administration, and imprisoned Japanese Americans. Yep, sounds like Stalin, just more Racist, just look at Jesse Owens experience with him.
People like that are extremely set in their ways and not likely to change. Decades of cold war propaganda designed to stiffle political dissent are to blame.
So Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Ortega, Kims, were not great Socialist/Communists. Just "just cold war propaganda"
You may want to consider some Economics, Business, and Finance because that's what drives most of the arguments against socialism, communism and other economic schemes that OPPRESS people.
Typical American anti-intellectual response. And you are attempting to change the subject. I was discussing the fallacy of "Reductio ad Stalin", not the merits of various political economies. Reductio ad Stalin pretty much guarantees we can never rationally discuss political economies in the first place.
Typical American anti-intellectual response. And you are attempting to change the subject. I was discussing the fallacy of "Reductio ad Stalin", not the merits of various political economies. Reductio ad Stalin pretty much guarantees we can never rationally discuss political economies in the first place.
Talking about Stalin is an extreme but one in which we have seen over and over in history. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh and many others. It is certainly not Reductio ad Absurdum.
My point was, that Philosophy, and Theology, like Art History is nice to know, but will not give you the skills, and knowledge to understand socialism, communism, capitalism, or what makes a society actually run. Sorry to burst your little Progressive bubble, but its the truth.
You mean like FDR raided safe deposit boxes in banks and stole gold from private owners? Then paid pennies on the dollar? Those kinds of practices?
Why would we trust a man who was a dismal failure in life before politics?
Hey! If Bernie wants to share those sweet General Dynamics kickbacks so I can live like a 1%er - I'll consider him!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
