US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[KeepTalking]

Bernie Sanders.

I'm often told that liberals aren't socialists and progressive aren't socialists. One of the big chuckles around here is when some conservative refers to a liberal or a progressive as a socialist.

Bernie Sanders self-describes as a socialist.

Something isn't connecting here.

Liberals and Progressives can be socialists, but they are not necessarily socialists. Just like Libertarians can be anarchists, but are not necessarily anarchists. I hope this clears it up for you. Unless, or course, you are being intentionally obtuse, in which case, carry on.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Isn't there anyone the liberal base both supports AND would be willing to vote for?

You know you have a shitty candidate when the best supporting argument is the SCOTUS nominees.

Joe Biden
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar <-Should go to the Supreme Court.
Martin O'Malley
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Jim Webb

 

[Derec]

Joe Biden

Too old. Too gaffe prone and handsy.

Kirsten Gillibrand

Way too focused on the "rape culture" nonsense, to the point of even thinking there is something to the UVA rape hoax.

Amy Klobuchar <-Should go to the Supreme Court.

Why she in particular? She never was a judge and lawyers among politicians are a dime a dozen.
Also, she seems to be anti-porn, which to me means she needs to stay as far away from SCOTUS as possible.

Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)
She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.

Martin O'Malley

Most viable potential Hillary slayer I would say.

Bernie Sanders

Too old and too left. Would only have a shot if he promised an 8 year supply of Ben&Jerry's in every fridge.

Elizabeth Warren

Has already said she will not run. Has not fleshed her positions outside Wall Street. Not much elected office experience but not young either (like Obama was).

Jim Webb

An interesting candidate with fascinating resume but definitely pushing it age-wise.

 

[arkirk]

Too old. Too gaffe prone and handsy.

Kirsten Gillibrand

Way too focused on the "rape culture" nonsense, to the point of even thinking there is something to the UVA rape hoax.

Amy Klobuchar <-Should go to the Supreme Court.

Why she in particular? She never was a judge and lawyers among politicians are a dime a dozen.
Also, she seems to be anti-porn, which to me means she needs to stay as far away from SCOTUS as possible.

Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)
She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.

Martin O'Malley

Most viable potential Hillary slayer I would say.

Bernie Sanders

Too old and too left. Would only have a shot if he promised an 8 year supply of Ben&Jerry's in every fridge.

Elizabeth Warren

Has already said she will not run. Has not fleshed her positions outside Wall Street. Not much elected office experience but not young either (like Obama was).

Jim Webb

An interesting candidate with fascinating resume but definitely pushing it age-wise.

Not a bad idea. I'll pass that on to him.

Your answer reflects the terrible conditions that prevail with an ill informed electorate. Gimmicks and wedge issues + lotsa cash = a winning ticket. With such a threatening set of environmental and economic issues on the table, it is amazing where the focus of the press remains. A sad and dangerous commentary for the U.S. Many so called Liberals are no such thing. They are sold outs and they rant and rave just like the ultra right on certain issues to get elected. They stay away from the fundamental problems facing our society...because they are paid to.

 

[Derec]

Not a bad idea. I'll pass that on to him.

You do that.

Your answer reflects the terrible conditions that prevail with an ill informed electorate. Gimmicks and wedge issues + lotsa cash = a winning ticket. With such a threatening set of environmental and economic issues on the table, it is amazing where the focus of the press remains. A sad and dangerous commentary for the U.S.

To govern, one must first be elected. That's just the way it is.
As far as "wedge issues", it is Gillebrand who built her national notoriety on hobby horsing so-called "rape culture", so don't blame the messenger.

Many so called Liberals are no such thing. They are sold outs and they rant and rave just like the ultra right on certain issues to get elected. They stay away from the fundamental problems facing our society...because they are paid to.

Even the very meaning of the word "liberal" (which comes from liberty) has been perverted. So-called modern liberals often take the anti-liberty position and call it "liberal". But somehow I do not think that's what you mean.

 

[arkirk]

You do that.

Your answer reflects the terrible conditions that prevail with an ill informed electorate. Gimmicks and wedge issues + lotsa cash = a winning ticket. With such a threatening set of environmental and economic issues on the table, it is amazing where the focus of the press remains. A sad and dangerous commentary for the U.S.

To govern, one must first be elected. That's just the way it is.
As far as "wedge issues", it is Gillebrand who built her national notoriety on hobby horsing so-called "rape culture", so don't blame the messenger.

Many so called Liberals are no such thing. They are sold outs and they rant and rave just like the ultra right on certain issues to get elected. They stay away from the fundamental problems facing our society...because they are paid to.

Even the very meaning of the word "liberal" (which comes from liberty) has been perverted. So-called modern liberals often take the anti-liberty position and call it "liberal". But somehow I do not think that's what you mean.

What do you think I do mean? Oh, don't worry I am aware that there is nothing "liberal" about Obama declaring Venezuela a threat to our country. Not very liberal at all. I see a lot wrong with Democrats. What bothers me is not liberty problems but their failure to put democracy to a good use, serving their public. Most people seem unaware that Chavez sponsored a winter fuel oil for the poor program in the northeast U.S. for a number of years. Maybe not that they have become threats, they may just cut that off. How is that a help?

Ask Loren if you can't figure it out. He can also tell you how my mind works and thoughts I hold secret inside my mind, like turning back the clock to the horse and buggy...and secretly wanting our society to fail. I think maybe he hasn't quite got the mind reading down completely...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bernie Sanders.

I'm often told that liberals aren't socialists and progressive aren't socialists. One of the big chuckles around here is when some conservative refers to a liberal or a progressive as a socialist.

Bernie Sanders self-describes as a socialist.

Something isn't connecting here.

People typically say "Obama isn't a socialist". So I understand how you could be confused.

Additionally, socialism carries multiple meanings. You have the purer sense of the word, then you have the adapted compassionate capitalism via socialistic protections (minimum wage, social security, welfare, FDIC, etc...) that better represent a modified socialistic model that doesn't suffer some of the consequences pure socialism does.

 

[Derec]

Additionally, socialism carries multiple meanings. You have the purer sense of the word, then you have the adapted compassionate capitalism via socialistic protections (minimum wage, social security, welfare, FDIC, etc...) that better represent a modified socialistic model that doesn't suffer some of the consequences pure socialism does.

Socialism refers to public ownership of means of production. A system that is essentially capitalistic but with high levels of regulation and generous social programs is not a form of socialism, it's a form of capitalism. Just like an essentially socialist system with some free-market concessions (like small private businesses) is still a form of socialism.

 

[Derec]

What do you think I do mean?

The definition that puts "liberal" on the left-wing spectrum, but not as far as "progressivism" and, even further down, "socialism".

Oh, don't worry I am aware that there is nothing "liberal" about Obama declaring Venezuela a threat to our country.

That declaration was a statutory requirement for imposing sanctions on certain Venezuelan officials. And while nobody thinks that Venezuelan armed forces will invade Miami to forcibly repatriate their expatriate countrymen (and much more importantly, their money), there can be a case made that given their still relatively high oil production (large fraction of which still ends up in our refineries and ultimately gas tanks) the threat of an all-out civil war does present a threat to our national security.

To go back to 'liberalism', I on the other hand see nothing liberal with the Chavez-Maduro regime. Not in regard to civil liberties, not in regard to social policies and certainly not in regard to economics.

Not very liberal at all. I see a lot wrong with Democrats. What bothers me is not liberty problems but their failure to put democracy to a good use, serving their public.

Speaks volumes. And it has nothing to do with real liberalism when the Democratic Senate majority leader wants the only state that has legal prostitution (even in a limited way) to outlaw it or when the left-wing government in France made prostitution illegal or when the left-wing government of Iceland goes even so far as to ban strip clubs. All very illiberal positions taken by what is considered "liberal" nowadays.
In seems to me that when it comes to sexuality, so-called liberals are only liberal in regard to certain favored groups. They are in favor of gay rights or abortions but balk at making laws that restrict heterosexual men more liberal.

Most people seem unaware that Chavez sponsored a winter fuel oil for the poor program in the northeast U.S. for a number of years. Maybe not that they have become threats, they may just cut that off. How is that a help?

They cut that off a long time ago because they could no longer afford it. And this program was well publicized when it was active. Veneuzela would have been much better off if they had used that money to fund investment at home, especially in the oil sector which was starved of investment by the Boligarchs resulting in a significant decrease in oil production. Perhaps then they would not be in quite as deep shit today.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm often told that liberals aren't socialists and progressive aren't socialists. One of the big chuckles around here is when some conservative refers to a liberal or a progressive as a socialist.

Bernie Sanders self-describes as a socialist.

Something isn't connecting here.

People typically say "Obama isn't a socialist". So I understand how you could be confused.

Additionally, socialism carries multiple meanings. You have the purer sense of the word, then you have the adapted compassionate capitalism via socialistic protections (minimum wage, social security, welfare, FDIC, etc...) that better represent a modified socialistic model that doesn't suffer some of the consequences pure socialism does.

No, Derec's right. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Although this will annoy the anarchist socialists, said ownership is usually exercised by the government. Every time someone who isn't a liberal, progressive, or socialist uses the term for one of the "multiple meanings" we are shouted down because it means public ownership of the means of production. So if that is the case for critics of socialism, that it can only mean that, then it is also the case for those who are less condemnatory of socialism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please show me evidence where Bernie Sanders says that we need public ownership of production.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All I have is evidence that he calls himself a socialist. Maybe he doesn't know what the word means.

 

[ksen]

No, Derec's right. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Although this will annoy the anarchist socialists, said ownership is usually exercised by the government.

sez who?

 

[bilby]

So the difference between socialism, with its public ownership of the means of production, and modern capitalism, with its broad shareholder base, is what, exactly?

Margaret Thatcher sold the publicly owned companies; but her stated vision was that as broad a section of the population as possible would buy the shares, and "become" the owners of these companies. This is, of course, like me stealing your TV and then offering to sell it back to you, so you can "become" a TV owner. Nonetheless, as her stated goal was broad ownership of shares amongst the general public, does that mean she was a socialist?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So the difference between socialism, with its public ownership of the means of production, and modern capitalism, with its broad shareholder base, is what, exactly?

Margaret Thatcher sold the publicly owned companies; but her stated vision was that as broad a section of the population as possible would buy the shares, and "become" the owners of these companies. This is, of course, like me stealing your TV and then offering to sell it back to you, so you can "become" a TV owner. Nonetheless, as her stated goal was broad ownership of shares amongst the general public, does that mean she was a socialist?

I think it means that she was a liar who was bullshitting people.

 

[bilby]

So the difference between socialism, with its public ownership of the means of production, and modern capitalism, with its broad shareholder base, is what, exactly?

Margaret Thatcher sold the publicly owned companies; but her stated vision was that as broad a section of the population as possible would buy the shares, and "become" the owners of these companies. This is, of course, like me stealing your TV and then offering to sell it back to you, so you can "become" a TV owner. Nonetheless, as her stated goal was broad ownership of shares amongst the general public, does that mean she was a socialist?

I think it means that she was a liar who was bullshitting people.

In other news:

Water 'may be wet' say Scientists;
Pope Declares Commitment to Catholic Faith;
Family Ursidae Utilise Arboreal Defaecation Sites.

More at Ten.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So anyway, I found the platform for the SDP back in 1900. Let's look at how radical it was. And lets keep in mind that we have roughly 115 years of hindsight here, and there was much less regulation back then. I've color coded the ones in blue that are enacted today (or were enacted). Ones in green are only partially enacted.

First
— Revision of our federal constitution, in order to remove the obstacles to complete control of government by the people irrespective of sex.

Second
— The public ownership of all industries controlled by monopolies, trusts, and combines.

Third
— The public ownership of all railroads, telegraphs, and telephones; all means of transportation and communication; all water works, gas and electric plants,and other public utilities.

Fourth
— The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, coal, and other mines, and all oil and gas wells.

Fifth
— The reduction of the hours of labor in proportion to the increasing facilities of production.

Sixth
— The inauguration of a system of public works and improvements for the employment of the unemployed, the public credit to be used for that purpose.

Seventh
— Useful inventions to be free, the inventor to be remunerated by the public.

Eighth
— Labor legislation to be national, instead of local, and international where possible.

Ninth
— National insurance of working people against accidents, lack of employment, and want in old age.

Tenth
— Equal civil and political rights for men and women, and the abolition of all laws discriminating against women.

Eleventh
— The adoption of the initiative and referendum, proportional representation, and the right of recall of representatives by the voters.

Twelfth
— Abolition of war and the introduction of international arbitration

I know, I know, the 12th one is silly, however I think the League of Nations then United Nations goal is as such to at least create a forum to prevent wars. It has worked on the big one.

So 7 of the 12 are enacted today (or were part of the recovery of Great Depression). Two were partially enacted (UN for 12) and the generally public status of necessity utilities and the strong regulation of other utilities. It could be argued that the second was partially enacted as well, via Trust Busting.

So 75% of the Socialist Democratic Party (Eugene Debs' horse) platform in 1900 exists today in our nation. So while the whole owning production part is true, it isn't that clear cut. In general, our nation stands in agreement with the Socialist Democratic Party in 1900. And where there is disagreement, it wasn't that there isn't agreement about there being a problem, just how to deal with the problem, ie break up monopolies, don't absorb them. This means the only major dispute is the ownership of mineral rights.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So anyway, I found the platform for the SDP back in 1900. Let's look at how radical it was. And lets keep in mind that we have roughly 115 years of hindsight here, and there was much less regulation back then. I've color coded the ones in blue that are enacted today (or were enacted). Ones in green are only partially enacted.

First
— Revision of our federal constitution, in order to remove the obstacles to complete control of government by the people irrespective of sex.

Second
— The public ownership of all industries controlled by monopolies, trusts, and combines.

Third
— The public ownership of all railroads, telegraphs, and telephones; all means of transportation and communication; all water works, gas and electric plants,and other public utilities.

Fourth
— The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, coal, and other mines, and all oil and gas wells.

Fifth
— The reduction of the hours of labor in proportion to the increasing facilities of production.

Sixth
— The inauguration of a system of public works and improvements for the employment of the unemployed, the public credit to be used for that purpose.

Seventh
— Useful inventions to be free, the inventor to be remunerated by the public.

Eighth
— Labor legislation to be national, instead of local, and international where possible.

Ninth
— National insurance of working people against accidents, lack of employment, and want in old age.

Tenth
— Equal civil and political rights for men and women, and the abolition of all laws discriminating against women.

Eleventh
— The adoption of the initiative and referendum, proportional representation, and the right of recall of representatives by the voters.

Twelfth
— Abolition of war and the introduction of international arbitration

I know, I know, the 12th one is silly, however I think the League of Nations then United Nations goal is as such to at least create a forum to prevent wars. It has worked on the big one.

So 7 of the 12 are enacted today (or were part of the recovery of Great Depression). Two were partially enacted (UN for 12) and the generally public status of necessity utilities and the strong regulation of other utilities. It could be argued that the second was partially enacted as well, via Trust Busting.

So 75% of the Socialist Democratic Party (Eugene Debs' horse) platform in 1900 exists today in our nation. So while the whole owning production part is true, it isn't that clear cut. In general, our nation stands in agreement with the Socialist Democratic Party in 1900. And where there is disagreement, it wasn't that there isn't agreement about there being a problem, just how to deal with the problem, ie break up monopolies, don't absorb them. This means the only major dispute is the ownership of mineral rights.

And we would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling kids from the Bowery.

 

[dismal]

I didn't realize we had public monopolies in any businesses but delivery of junk mail and law enforcement. Well, you can get private policemen but theyre not allowed to be as brutal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't realize we had public monopolies in any businesses but delivery of junk mail and law enforcement. Well, you can get private policemen but theyre not allowed to be as brutal.

Water, sewer. A few places electric. And otherwise, the remaining utilities are regulated, which is an alternative to public ownership.