Bernie Sanders quit Democratic party to return as a independent senator - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50808653]I'm not trying to say that these "Bernie or Bust" guys are in the right, but does being anti-establishment really make you an idiot? Seriously, in this day and age? Shit, I don't know if there's anything MORE american than distrusting the government.[/QUOTE] The problem is that a good amount of these people people are anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment. They're too lazy to actually figure out what ideas they are in favor of.

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50808301]They never supported him or his ideas, they were just anti-establishment idiots[/QUOTE] yeah but the establishment in the US is fucking terrible. [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50808698]The problem is that a good amount of these people people are anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment. They're too lazy to actually figure out what ideas they are in favor of.[/QUOTE] err... how do you know that? where they polled or something?

"And now back to our regularly scheduled program" - the DNC

[QUOTE=duckmaster;50808459]Shows how much you actually paid attention to the democratic platform.[/QUOTE] The party platform means nothing. It is a public relations document/strategy that's conveniently brought up whenever there's a major election, talked about for a little while, then quietly and deliberately moved into the background again when the elections are over. If you've ever worked on the campaign of a Congressional candidate before or if you have ever met a Congressional candidate who was going door to door or had a table set up somewhere at a meeting, you would know that most of them do not even bother handing their party's platform out to voters. That's because American politics has a considerable amount of individual influence in it; it's about individual candidates trying to make themselves stand out and seem as appealing as possible, both against the people they're running against in the election at hand but also within their own party at large. "Candidate So-And-So stands for X, Y, and Z. Vote Candidate So-And-So". Minimal mentioning of the party, it's always politicians talking about themselves and how great they are-- sometimes spicing things up by talking shit about other politicians in the process (Obama's a favorite of course to shit on; we're seeing that this election in my state with Eric Greitens' campaign). I'm not sure how else I can explain this any more clearly. Furthermore, I suggest you study the Democratic Party's platform that they worked out-- especially the language they've decided to use. Keep an eye out in particular for their usage of the phrase "diversity of views". It's another way of subtly and quietly sheltering and condoning the views of corporate Democrats like Clinton, DWS, and so on (the usual names we all should know by now). In other words: "We stand for $15 minimum wage, we're against the TPP, tax reforms... but there are other people in this party who do not feel this way, and we must respect that because of bullshit reasons. So in truth, we actually don't stand for what we say we do." If there's anything which should be learned from the new platform, it should be this lesson: be distrustful of language. It's not going to lead to anything major, and to think it will is just absurdly optimistic. The decision to make it appear more progressive and in line with Sanders' views was done to pander. There is no honest intention here to see these positions upheld and promises fulfilled. This is politics we're talking about... things don't work that way. There's always other motivations and plans going on, assuming things aren't blocked/stalemated I mean. And Democrats can't afford that kind of sneaky "diversity of views" bullshit either. The people do not want to listen to that crap. They've gotten smart, they know it's crap, and it irritates the hell out of them. They want clear, concise promises and to feel like they're being listened to/emotionally validated. Trump is as popular as he is because of the latter. If the party platform was being elevated to something more than just what it typically is, if there were definitive promises being made to honestly strive towards achieving its goals and to cut corporatism and backroom capitalism out of the equation entirely, and if there were guaranteed consequences for any events of dishonesty, then it would mean something. Then all this optimism about it being so great and progressive and the herald for the world of tomorrow would be more than just optimism. But that's not the case. And for the record, I'm smart enough to understand that the Democrats and Clinton have obvious incentives to actually try and pass the stuff they've got outlined in the party platform. If they did, then they would be praised and loved for it; the party's reputation would be fantastic among voters, a new progressive golden age could be proclaimed, and they'd probably be winning elections left and right because of how popular it would make them (it certainly wouldn't hurt them lol)... ...having said all that, don't think for a second though that there won't be dirty little details they'll try and sneak into whatever legislation they go to pass that will extend corruption, preserve the rotten order of the establishment, etc. There absolutely will be. Look at just how un-progressive (indeed, anti-progressive) their platform's current stances are on trade policy/national commerce and environmental policy. Hell, more importantly than that, [url=http://inthesetimes.com/article/19295/are-core-progressive-values-being-compromised-with-2016-democratic-platform]look at the people who were on the panel to write the platform in the first place and who tore out progressive suggestions[/url]. That should serve as a warning sign right there. Even if Clinton gets into office, don't delude yourselves into thinking some kind of a major victory has been won. It'll only be the beginning of a long fight that will require us to keep vigilant with justifiable skepticism. The establishment sucks balls (understatement of the millennium), and it's not just going to roll over and abandon/180* all of its interests and possessions that it has been working to accumulate and defend for decades now.

Why did people support him at all with his democratic socialism aka Communism?

Perhaps because his policies appeal to them? They appealed to me.

[QUOTE=Skanic;50808818]Why did people support him at all with his democratic socialism aka Communism?[/QUOTE] how is democratic socialism communism

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50808653]I'm not trying to say that these "Bernie or Bust" guys are in the right, but does being anti-establishment really make you an idiot? Seriously, in this day and age? Shit, I don't know if there's anything MORE american than distrusting the government.[/QUOTE] Let's put it this way: That big anti-establishment movement that also happened in the mid-70s gave us Jimmy Carter, a president that did basically nothing and was out after one term.

[QUOTE=sb27;50808292]It's very unfortunate that some of his former supporters want to piss that away by voting for his polar opposite, Trump, or third-party.[/QUOTE] Why do you think that? Not only does the Democratic Party not own my vote simply because I'm a member, Hillary has made it very clear she doesn't want or need my vote. From "correcting the record" to straight up insulting Sanders on numerous issues including accusing him of being partly guilty of the Sandy Hook massacre, she's shown a distinct lack of integrity.. She's lied repeatedly, from weird white lies like being under fire in Bosnia, to straight up insulting lies like DOMA somehow being in the defense of gay people. For those reasons, and many more, I'm not going to vote for her, and I never will. Frankly, I don't owe her a damn thing, and neither does anyone else. It's not "her turn", and you shouldn't be voting for a president because they want to be the leader of the free world really badly, and certainly not because your party is telling you that you're a bad person otherwise. If you agree with her policies and still think she's a reliable politician who will be able to implement those policies, go ahead and vote for her, and I'm glad you find a candidate you agree with. That's sure as hell not a reason to try to force other people to do so though.

[QUOTE=Skanic;50808818]Why did people support him at all with his democratic socialism aka Communism?[/QUOTE] How can you live in Norway and not understand basic socialism v. communism, let alone the distinction of socialism v. democratic socialism?

[QUOTE=srobins;50808905]How can you live in Norway and not understand basic socialism v. communism, let alone the distinction of socialism v. democratic socialism?[/QUOTE] Maybe because he lives in Norway he actually has a better understanding of it? Just a thought.

Democratic Socialism is just a sugar coat name for Communism, because the word Democratic makes it sound nicer. And what does me living in Norway have to do with that? At the moment we have Conservative party as State minister called Erna Solberg. We also don't have your 2 party system. We have the Stortinget which roughly translated the Great Council which has 8 Party in it that choose what Laws etc are being passed. You can read here [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storting[/url]

[QUOTE=revanade;50808889]Why do you think that? Not only does the Democratic Party not own my vote simply because I'm a member, Hillary has made it very clear she doesn't want or need my vote. From "correcting the record" to straight up insulting Sanders on numerous issues including accusing him of being partly guilty of the Sandy Hook massacre, she's shown a distinct lack of integrity.. She's lied repeatedly, from weird white lies like being under fire in Bosnia, to straight up insulting lies like DOMA somehow being in the defense of gay people. For those reasons, and many more, I'm not going to vote for her, and I never will. Frankly, I don't owe her a damn thing, and neither does anyone else. It's not "her turn", and you shouldn't be voting for a president because they want to be the leader of the free world really badly, and certainly not because your party is telling you that you're a bad person otherwise. If you agree with her policies and still think she's a reliable politician who will be able to implement those policies, go ahead and vote for her, and I'm glad you find a candidate you agree with. That's sure as hell not a reason to try to force other people to do so though.[/QUOTE] 1) Clinton has made it very clear through action that actually, she does want and need your vote, due to the fact that her entire party platform has changed to include a substantial number of policies that Sanders advocated. This is how democracy works. If you want the change that Sanders offered, you vote for the platform that the party offers. 2) You should be voting for a party because you believe in their policies and you should be wise and mature enough to ignore the cults of personality that form around potential leaders, bad or otherwise. Obama for example was an example of a great president who was the victim of the sad fact of American politics, which is when it comes to the president, democrats vote - when it comes to congress and the house, they don't. Hence why republicans generally control the house. For anyone who is now not voting Bernie simply because Hilary is in change, I reserve the right to condemn - it shows a fundamental ignorance of the way democracy and political systems work at their heart in almost every free country. The leader is a powerful figure but is not the sole agent for change in any country and the one thing I've gotten from this american campaign is that a lot of people find it very easy to pay lip service to progressive ideas but are very quick to abandon them Actually trump supporters take note as well because when he says "hes the only person who can fix america", actually democratic systems are designed so that one person 'fixing' a country can never happen I'm just saying sure you don't owe hilary anything but you do owe it to yourself to make a pragmatic decision the future of your country, not an emotional one.

[QUOTE]As an elected official in Congress, Sanders caucused with the Democrats, but considers himself an independent due to his far-left-leaning views.[/QUOTE] Still makes me laugh that he's considered "far left" in the USA. He's pretty much a centrist in the rest of the West.

d

[QUOTE=Skanic;50808964]Democratic Socialism is just a sugar coat name for Communism, because the word Democratic makes it sound nicer.[/QUOTE] Haven't realized that I've been living in a communist country for 30 years and guess what, I like it. Don't try to make capitalist countries sounds like a paradise to live in.

[QUOTE=Skanic;50808964][B]Democratic Socialism is just a sugar coat name for Communism, because the word Democratic makes it sound nicer.[/B] And what does me living in Norway have to do with that? At the moment we have Conservative party as State minister called Erna Solberg. We also don't have your 2 party system. We have the Stortinget which roughly translated the Great Council which has 8 Party in it that choose what Laws etc are being passed. You can read here [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storting[/URL][/QUOTE] When has the state taken control of the means of production in Norway or attempted to establish a classless society

[QUOTE=Chaitin;50809065]Haven't realized that I've been living in a communist country for 30 years and guess what, I like it. Don't try to make capitalist countries sounds like a paradise to live in.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't get the capitalism-hate circlejerk on this site. For a good majority of America's history, spanning centuries, we've been the world economical superpower-- and we've managed that feat through capitalism. Capitalism has brought us to where we are today. Sure, there'll occasionally be issues like corruption, but that doesn't outweigh the massive benefits that capitalism has brought us. It's one thing to have a preference of systems, but outright slamming capitalism as something that isn't a functional and efficient system is eyeroll-worthy. We wouldn't be where we are today technologically or in choices of products if it weren't for capitalism's encouragement to innovate within the Western world.

[QUOTE=Skanic;50808964]Democratic Socialism is just a sugar coat name for Communism, because the word Democratic makes it sound nicer.[/QUOTE] :what:

[QUOTE=Monkah;50809151]I honestly don't get the capitalism-hate circlejerk on this site. For a good majority of America's history, spanning centuries, we've been the world economical superpower-- and we've managed that feat through capitalism. Capitalism has brought us to where we are today. Sure, there'll occasionally be issues like corruption, but that doesn't outweigh the massive benefits that capitalism has brought us. It's one thing to have a preference of systems, but outright slamming capitalism as something that isn't a functional and efficient system is eyeroll-worthy. We wouldn't be where we are today technologically or in choices of products if it weren't for capitalism's encouragement to innovate within the Western world.[/QUOTE] Well I think that's over stating it a bit, America is powerful because it's situated on a huge resource rich section of the planet. On top of that a lot of the major innovation in the US came from the public sector usually through the military and then trickled down into the private sector later.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50809151]I honestly don't get the capitalism-hate circlejerk on this site. For a good majority of America's history, spanning centuries, we've been the world economical superpower-- and we've managed that feat through capitalism. Capitalism has brought us to where we are today. Sure, there'll occasionally be issues like corruption, but that doesn't outweigh the massive benefits that capitalism has brought us. It's one thing to have a preference of systems, but outright slamming capitalism as something that isn't a functional and efficient system is eyeroll-worthy. We wouldn't be where we are today technologically or in choices of products if it weren't for capitalism's encouragement to innovate within the Western world.[/QUOTE] I think the issue is less about capitalism being bad in and of itself and moreso anger with all the ways that it's exploited without any oversight.

d

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50809167]I think the issue is less about capitalism being bad in and of itself and moreso anger with all the ways that it's exploited without any oversight.[/QUOTE] So what? Does anyone on this site really think that [I]~democratic socialism~[/I] won't be exploited to hell and back as well? The solution isn't to throw away the system that's produced amazing results for hundreds of years, the solution is to fix the issues that the system is having.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50809151]I honestly don't get the capitalism-hate circlejerk on this site. For a good majority of America's history, spanning centuries, we've been the world economical superpower-- and we've managed that feat through capitalism. Capitalism has brought us to where we are today. Sure, there'll occasionally be issues like corruption, but that doesn't outweigh the massive benefits that capitalism has brought us. It's one thing to have a preference of systems, but outright slamming capitalism as something that isn't a functional and efficient system is eyeroll-worthy. We wouldn't be where we are today technologically or in choices of products if it weren't for capitalism's encouragement to innovate within the Western world.[/QUOTE] Probably because unrestrained Corporate influence has been the cause of a great deal of the world's problems. I generally think Capitalism is fine, it just needs to be reigned in. There are things more important than pure economic growth.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50809151]I honestly don't get the capitalism-hate circlejerk on this site. For a good majority of America's history, spanning centuries, we've been the world economical superpower-- and we've managed that feat through capitalism. Capitalism has brought us to where we are today. Sure, there'll occasionally be issues like corruption, but that doesn't outweigh the massive benefits that capitalism has brought us. It's one thing to have a preference of systems, but outright slamming capitalism as something that isn't a functional and efficient system is eyeroll-worthy. We wouldn't be where we are today technologically or in choices of products if it weren't for capitalism's encouragement to innovate within the Western world.[/QUOTE] I believe people supported Sanders' policies because they are more in line with the Henry Wallace style of governing. The best answer, I believe, is a healthy mix of both capitalism and democratic socialism - capitalism where there is no ethical or moral issue with making an industry of it, and where there are moral issues, nationalize it (healthcare, roads, police, national defense, etc - basic services needed for society - all should be nationalized in any modern first world nation). Matters of life and death should be in an impartial hand, but hey, sell all the TVs and cars and stuff you want. I reference Henry Wallace because after the end of the second world war, he was adamant about the fact that alternative forms of government are not our enemy. Neither the socialists, nor socialism itself, nor the communists, nor communism itself are the enemy of freedom. It would not have hindered our progress to have just competed with them peacefully instead of a decades long cold war filled with proxy battles between two giant war machines. We could have had healthy industrial competition had people not been like "HURR DURR COMMUNISM". Either way, Henry Wallace ended up being 100% accurate in that repressive regimes eventually started to allow in bits of capitalist ideas and give back various freedoms to their people because it started to make financial sense, and governments like the US are slowly taking away freedoms where it makes financial and ethical sense, eventually meeting in the middle wherever the cash flows easiest. And Sanders is a pauper compared to Wallace, who left to his sons an agriculture business that was very successful. We're talking about a very very rich man, whose policies were said in his day to have been "the closest thing Stalin ever got to electing the president". It's terrible that the american establishment is so against humanitarian policies, demonizing them as anti-rich, when they're not really, as evidenced by the fact that even some rich people have supported them. If you're a multi-billionaire and you have to give away a few million, you're still a multi-billionaire, no harm done. But we don't see it that way in america, you really have to twist peoples' arms and force them to help each other here. People support these policies because it makes sense. At the highest end of the estimates I've seen for how much more in taxes I'd pay under a Sanders plan, it was still less than half of what it would cost me to go out and buy health insurance for myself. And the only reason we're not doing it is because this is america and I want the freedom to make dumb decisions for myself and to refuse health insurance. I mean, what if they allowed you the freedom to pick your own private defense contractor? Oh, because yeah, I don't want you wasting my tax dollars on the military. I'd rather hire my own. Get that socialist crap out of here, I don't need big government forcing me to pay for a military I don't need! I'm not even getting invaded right now!

[QUOTE=Monkah;50809189]So what? Does anyone on this site really think that [I]~democratic socialism~[/I] won't be exploited to hell and back as well? The solution isn't to throw away the system that's produced amazing results for hundreds of years, the solution is to fix the issues that the system is having.[/QUOTE] Nobody said otherwise, it just so happens those fixes can be and are labeled as 'democratic socialism'.

there is a whole lot of americans (even one norwegian lol poor him) conflating democratic socialism and social democracy over here [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy[/URL] canada is mainly based on social democratic system fyi, as most western nations. hint, think about [B]social security [/B]

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;50809304]there is a whole lot of americans (even one norwegian lol poor him) conflating democratic socialism and social democracy over here [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy[/URL] canada is mainly based on social democratic system fyi, as most western nations. hint, think about [B]social security [/B][/QUOTE] Shut up commie, this is AMERICA we're talking about.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;50809304]there is a whole lot of americans (even one norwegian lol poor him) conflating democratic socialism and social democracy over here [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy[/URL] canada is mainly based on social democratic system fyi, as most western nations. hint, think about [B]social security [/B][/QUOTE] yeah sorry i'm an idiot points still stand though, I think, hell I dunno all i know is, if it's okay to nationalize the military defense of the country and its' foreign interests, i think it makes sense to nationalize healthcare which defends the well-being of the citizens of the country, promoting its' interests. edit: I disagree with the $15 minimum wage, though. I disagree with the minimum wage entirely. Replace that, and the majority of all social welfare programs, with a guaranteed basic income for all. You don't need exclusive programs that have special qualifiers to feed poor people when everyone is guaranteed a check and is therefore guaranteed to (at least have a fair chance to) eat. And from my quick google of the numbers, a GBI of like maybe $1000 a month for every single living american wouldn't cost that much more than what we spend on social welfare programs now. Might could cut a little out of that defense budget and make up for the difference.

It sounds to me like the whole capitalism vs communism thing has a lot of people trying to cram a very complicated mass of issues into two cookie cutter shapes because it makes it feel nicer to talk about. I really dont think you can reduce the foundation of an entire country into two different words.