Donald Trump cancels Chicago campaign rally over security concerns. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49924734]Like someone said a few weeks ago, thats the best case scenario: That after 4 years of a disastrous Trump presidency Americans will learn the error of their ways.[/QUOTE] ya I don't think everyone going by this "things need to get worse before they get better" philosophy realize how optimistic it is sure a trump presidency could swing the pendulum in the other direction and bring about another bernie-like candidate, but it could very well go the other way and strengthen the establishment instead

Alternatively, 4 (or 8 good god) years of Trump would help set in motion a terminal and unescapable socioeconomic decline.

[QUOTE=Vasili;49920021]Yeah, [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)[/URL] That's putting it mildly if the body guards weren't there to stop him.[/QUOTE] Follow up: turns out he didn't even intend to spit on him, so there was no chance of assault ever occurring. He was just going to take his mic away and tackle the podium. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3WQe8XkpM4[/media] Good for him. Actually, it seems like he has a reasonable head on his shoulders concerning this issue. Made a lot of good points about Trump's rhetoric.

[QUOTE=Govna;49927138]Follow up: turns out he didn't even intend to spit on him, so there was no chance of assault ever occurring. He was just going to take his mic away and tackle the podium. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3WQe8XkpM4[/media] Good for him. Actually, it seems like he has a reasonable head on his shoulders concerning this issue. Made a lot of good points about Trump's rhetoric.[/QUOTE] Now I'm going to preface my point with this. I'm all for Bernie, totally anti-Trump. I think Tommy is lying.

[QUOTE=Govna;49927138]Follow up: turns out he didn't even intend to spit on him, so there was no chance of assault ever occurring. He was just going to take his mic away and tackle the podium. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3WQe8XkpM4[/media] Good for him. Actually, it seems like he has a reasonable head on his shoulders concerning this issue. Made a lot of good points about Trump's rhetoric.[/QUOTE] I think it's unacceptable for literally anyone to try and rush a candidate like that, I don't care what he says his intention was, it looks violent.

[QUOTE=Medevila;49927200]likely that someone justifying supporting Hitler/NSDAP in pre-Nazi Germany would sound pretty similar[/QUOTE] With the Hitler comparisons again, cute. You could say the supporters of Sanders echo those of communist and socialist revolutionaries.

I just think it's cheap to go for the "it's like Hitler/Nazi" angle

[QUOTE=wystan;49927215]With the Hitler comparisons again, cute. You could say the supporters of Sanders echo those of communist and socialist revolutionaries.[/QUOTE] Bernie Sanders echoes the violent radical Marxism of Lenin and his clique in Russia/Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and Clara Zetkin in Germany? Elaborate, please. [editline]14th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;49927241]I just think it's cheap to go for the "it's like Hitler/Nazi" angle[/QUOTE] He's right-wing, he's a populist, he's using the same kind of rhetoric Hitler used about making Germany great ("a world power, or nothing at all") again after the years of hyperinflation and depression, he's xenophobic, he advocates the use of violence and speaks violently of his opponents... It's not cheap, it's accurate. Nobody's saying he's literally Hitler, just that there are very strong similarities which can be seen between the two and equally strong comparisons which can be argued for.

[QUOTE=wystan;49927215]With the Hitler comparisons again, cute. You could say the supporters of Sanders echo those of [B]communist and socialist revolutionaries.[/B][/QUOTE] [B]NO.[/B] [B]NO HE FUCKING DOESN'T.[/B] Hitler and Nazi Germany were socialist, Sander is Jewish; he knows just how terrible national socialism is! It was the fucking Holocaust and Hitler' rise to power that taught him how fucking important politics is in our world. He doesn't want the fucking government to sieze the means of production violently, he doesn't want a communist state for fuck sakes when it comes to healthcare he just wants the government to foot the fucking bill so people don't go bankrupt making sure their families don't die from something easily treatable. Sanders has shown his patriotism more then Trump ever could. When Sanders was in college he fought segregation in chicago housing, he marched with Martin Luther King, he was arrested for protesting the evil in our country. He ran for politics and has represented the people of his country better then Trump ever could. Bernie Sanders doesn't go around saying we should kill the families of terrorists, or that we should be using more brutal forms of torture. What has Trump ever fucking done besides inherit a fortune and build hotels and try to get Scotland to tear down its wind farms? Charity for veterans? Bernie Sanders has worked on the VA to fight for veterans and worked across the aisle with war heroes like John McCain(Who Trump called a loser ffs) for these people. It shouldn't take a fucking social libertarian to defend Sanders against such a ignoramus claim that he is a "marxist evil commie!", he's dimensions away from such political beliefs. Meanwhile you have Trump saying "We'll force Apple to make their products here!", "It's time we use our military to get what we want from enemies AND allies", saying that people who criticize him should "watch out". He encourages hate, scapegoats muslims like Hitler did the jews and openly brags that he will ignore the law and the military will not disobey him if he gives a order that goes against the morals and standards of any decent human being and military servicemen. OPEN YOUR EYES.

[QUOTE=Govna;49927302]Bernie Sanders echoes the violent radical Marxism of Lenin and his clique in Russia/Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and Clara Zetkin in Germany? Elaborate, please. [editline]14th March 2016[/editline] He's right-wing, he's a populist, he's using the same kind of rhetoric Hitler used about making Germany great ("a world power, or nothing at all") again after the years of hyperinflation and depression, he's xenophobic, he advocates the use of violence and speaks violently of his opponents... It's not cheap, it's accurate. Nobody's saying he's literally Hitler, just that there are very strong similarities which can be seen between the two and equally strong comparisons which can be argued for.[/QUOTE] The amount of times Sanders blames the evil bourgeoisie and shoehorns "Wallstreet" and "the 1%" into his answers in addition for constantly calling for a revolution in this country, spreading the wealth and taking from the rich simply because they have more money than they do, largely supported by useful idiots (i.e young people with no real understanding of history and economics). He's left-wing, he's a populist, he's using the same rhetoric that Lenin used to motive the people and punish the rich because they have what we want.

[QUOTE=wystan;49927452]The amount of times Sanders blames the evil bourgeoisie and shoehorns "Wallstreet" and "the 1%" into his answers in addition for constantly calling for a revolution in this country, spreading the wealth and taking from the rich simply because they have more money than they do, largely supported by useful idiots (i.e young people with no real understanding of history and economics). He's left-wing, he's a populist, he's using the same rhetoric that Lenin used to motive the people and punish the rich because they have what we want.[/QUOTE] Same shit that Lenin used? Bernie Sanders is speaking out against the rampant tax cuts that Bush and Reagan gave that increased wealth disparity, the tax loopholes allowing the rich to hoard money overseas, the corporate welfare costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year. He doesn't want to take everyone's wealth away, he wants the top earners to start paying at a rate proportionate to what they earn like the rest of us. He wants a speculation tax to stop Wall Street from ballooning out of control and causing another economic crash like we saw in 1929 and in 2008.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49927485]Same shit that Lenin used? Bernie Sanders is speaking out against the rampant tax cuts that Bush and Reagan gave that increased wealth disparity, the tax loopholes allowing the rich to hoard money overseas, the corporate welfare costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year. He doesn't want to take everyone's wealth away, he wants the top earners to start paying at a rate proportionate to what they earn like the rest of us. He wants a speculation tax to stop Wall Street from ballooning out of control and causing another economic crash like we saw in 1929 and in 2008.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a great way to drive businesses out of America. Why should you tax speculation? Why tax what those people are doing with their own money? It is effectively betting, just on market price fluctuations, and plenty of them already lose money off it, it's like taxing a percentage of my chips at a blackjack table for every bet I make. [editline]13th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Medevila;49927507]I think it's pretty hypocritical of you to say Trump's rhetoric can't be compared to a right-wing extremist but then stress the similarity between Sanders' tone and a left-wing revolutionary[/QUOTE] It's right wing for sure, but when you invoke the Hitler card it inherently carries a racist implication towards Trump, which is just false. With Sanders and his comparisons, it's all about the class struggle.

[QUOTE=Sableye;49920856]Bernie is talking about the kind of revolution at the ballot box, Trump is talking about the kind of change done at gunpoint (by that I mean rounding up and deporting millions, using the military to dickwave, and in general become aggressive towards our allies and neighbors alike) Bernie knows that he and his supporters won't get anything done unless they can toss out the tea party, even the Republicans would welcome that at this point since the "freedom" caucus destroyed their leadership in the house[/QUOTE] A revolution against who? The people that Bernie hate mongers against: the lobbyists taking over the government, wall street destroying the economy, corporations shipping jobs overseas, etc. I get that lots of people agree with him, but his message is still basically about how we need to fight against those bad people over there because they're hurting us. Remember that every promise Bernie makes is based on the assumption that those bad rich people should be forced to "bail out main street" because of how much they don't deserve the money they've made off the backs of the average person. The more hate people have towards the wealthy the better Bernie's message goes over. It's easy to justify taking more from a group if you already don't like them.

[QUOTE=Medevila;49927200]likely that someone justifying supporting Hitler/NSDAP in pre-Nazi Germany would sound pretty similar[/QUOTE] It's like any sort of nationalism is literally Hitler these days or something. America is too liberal for fascism, so these comparisons are always ridiculous. Also bernie is as pink as it gets for a socialist, but he still was a part of the new left and, as liberal as they were, he is in the broad tradition of marxists. Democratic socialism is marxism watered down for American liberals and college students, anyway.

[QUOTE=wystan;49927452]The amount of times Sanders blames the evil bourgeoisie and shoehorns "Wallstreet" and "the 1%" into his answers in addition for constantly calling for a revolution in this country, spreading the wealth and taking from the rich simply because they have more money than they do, largely supported by useful idiots (i.e young people with no real understanding of history and economics). He's left-wing, he's a populist, he's using the same rhetoric that Lenin used to motive the people and punish the rich because they have what we want.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this has never happened. Especially with the Leninist rhetoric. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Hanging_Order]When has Sanders ever called for confiscating every last scrap of property from the rich/privileged before hanging them to send a message?[/url] Please don't point fingers about not understanding history unless you yourself understand it. It simply has not happened. He's left-wing, and a populist. That's where the similarities end. Otherwise, he's the complete opposite of Lenin. Or Trotsky for that matter. Or certainly Stalin, and as well the additional members of the German Spartacus League that I listed off. He doesn't want to confiscate the wealth of the rich, he doesn't want a literal revolution that will lead to blood in the streets (as Robert Reich has said, it's about giving us the political system we need to have and removing this status quo monied establishmentarianism that's been corrupting it for too long now), and he's also not a Communist/Marxist-Leninist/whatever you choose to call that kind of radical leftism. And Wall Street deserves to be shoehorned for their irresponsible and greedy actions, which majorly contributed to the recession we had to endure in the first place (whether we're talking banking and trading, in particular, or real estate). He can hardly be blamed for his criticisms there, against Goldman Sachs especially.

"Wall Street" is a purely demagogic term. You want to go get specific people who did illegal things, then please do. Name them and specify what they did and the proper response, but when he says "Wall Street" he's just referring to the vague idea of people who make money off the stock market. It's only useful as a way to lump a bunch of totally unrelated people together, blame them for specific actions of a few, and punish the entire group.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49927761]"Wall Street" is a purely demagogic term.[/QUOTE] How's that?

[QUOTE=Govna;49927787]How's that?[/QUOTE] I clarified in an edit.

ded

[QUOTE=sgman91;49927761]You want to go get specific people who did illegal things, then please do. Name them and specify what they did and the proper response, but when he says "Wall Street" he's just referring to the vague idea of people who make money off the stock market.[/QUOTE] He's done this, though. Specifically, he's gone after the organizations themselves: Goldman Sachs (and Lloyd Blankfein by extension, since he's the CEO), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, banks that fought against the Glass-Steagall Act years ago when he was still just a senator, [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/06/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-six-bank-companies-have-assets/]JP Morgan & Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley back in 2011 when Occupy Wall Street was still on (also Goldman Sachs at the same time)[/url]... The organizations themselves are as much a problem as the individuals behind them are. The reason why he goes for the organizations however is because attacking people the way Trump does isn't his style. It never has been. And the bigger issue is that the individuals here that were guilty come and go; they die, they move on with their lives and retire, etc. But the institutions remain. The "too big to fail" mentality, which he's railed against for years now, is more dangerous here than they are, and it needs to be attacked more than the individuals do. If you can eliminate the mentality, then you've already done a good job at eliminating the problem; there's other things to take care of, of course (including the individuals), but this is the best way to start working to solve the problem. "Wall Street" is not a demagogic term. It's an accurate blanket term that's used to describe a variety of behaviors, mentalities, and actions that have serious financial and by extension economic influences on the United States and the government. [url=https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/]This has all been outlined for a while now[/url].

[QUOTE=Octavius;49927867]Hitler and Nazi Germany were definitely not socialist though, fyi.[/QUOTE] It was in the sense of modern day "socialism". He nationalized key industries, put tariffs on imports, etc. The same sort of things modern day 'democratic socialists' want to do. [editline]13th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;49927897]He's done this, though. Specifically, he's gone after the organizations themselves: Goldman Sachs (and Lloyd Blankfein by extension, since he's the CEO), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, banks that fought against the Glass-Steagall Act years ago when he was still just a senator, [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/06/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-six-bank-companies-have-assets/"]JP Morgan & Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley back in 2011 when Occupy Wall Street was still on (also Goldman Sachs at the same time)[/URL]... The organizations themselves are as much a problem as the individuals behind them are. The reason why he goes for the organizations however is because attacking people the way Trump does isn't his style. It never has been. And the bigger issue is that the individuals here that were guilty come and go; they die, they move on with their lives and retire, etc. But the institutions remain. The "too big to fail" mentality, which he's railed against for years now, is more dangerous here than they are, and it needs to be attacked more than the individuals do. If you can eliminate the mentality, then you've already done a good job at eliminating the problem; there's other things to take care of, of course, but this is the best way to start. "Wall Street" is not a demagogic term. It's an accurate blanket term that's used to describe a variety of behaviors, mentalities, and actions that have serious financial and by extension economic influences on the United States and the government. [URL="https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/"]This has all been outlined for a while now[/URL].[/QUOTE] That's fine, but he hasn't done any of that in his campaign. He also obviously referring to more than that because his "wall street speculation" tax is a tax on all trading, not just on specific organizations. Is the wealthy small business owner who plays the stock market part of "wall street," because he pays that "wall street" tax just like the big speculators would.

I've never seen Sanders rhetoric against the financial sector being hateful. I guess you can criticize him for generalizing but I do know that he has specifically targeted the speculator and hedge fund markets. Since when is criticizing something hateful?

[QUOTE=sgman91;49927899]It was in the sense of modern day "socialism". He nationalized key industries, put tariffs on imports, etc. The same sort of things modern day 'democratic socialists' want to do.[/QUOTE] So was Fascism in Spain under Franco and Italy under Mussolini also socialism in the "modern day sense" then? Because both men focused on nationalization policies in their countries (with a stronger emphasis on corporatism in Italy), and they did what they could to fight against imports to encourage autarky (although Italy still traded with Germany, and Franco finally figured out that shit wasn't working for Spain-- which led to him to lean more towards international cooperation and ultimately a national economic and trade boom in the late-1950s to mid-1970s). Hitler was not a socialist. Nazi-Germany was not a socialist state. Neither were Franco/Mussolini and Spain/Italy. Now that's not to say these individuals were not influenced by socialism's ideals, but they were not socialists and had no intention of creating socialist states-- not in a modern sense, and certainly not in a democratic socialist sense. [editline]14th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49927899]That's fine, but he hasn't done any of that in his campaign. He also obviously referring to more than that because his "wall street speculation" tax is a tax on all trading, not just on specific organizations. Is the wealthy small business owner who plays the stock market part of "wall street," because he pays that "wall street" tax just like the big speculators would.[/QUOTE] [url=https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/]What?[/url]

[QUOTE=Govna;49927945]So was Fascism in Spain under Franco and Italy under Mussolini also socialism in the "modern day sense" then? Because both men focused on nationalization policies in their countries (with a stronger emphasis on corporatism in Italy), and they did what they could to fight against imports to encourage autarky (although Italy still traded with Germany, and Franco finally figured out that shit wasn't working for Spain-- which led to him to lean more towards international cooperation and ultimately a national economic and trade boom in the late-1950s to mid-1970s). Hitler was not a socialist. Nazi-Germany was not a socialist state. Neither were Franco/Mussolini and Spain/Italy. Now that's not to say these individuals were not influenced by socialism's ideals, but they were not socialists.[/QUOTE] That's what modern day socialism consists of: put heavy regulation on business, nationalize key industries that you don't feel are efficient enough, put tariffs on imports to encourage business growth at home, tax the rich, etc. That's the exact sort of thing the Nazis did. All you did was say, "No, you're wrong." [editline]13th March 2016[/editline] At minimum they were closer to modern say socialists than modern day capitalists.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49927959]That's what modern day socialism consists of: put heavy regulation on business, nationalize key industries that you don't feel are efficient enough, put tariffs on imports to encourage business growth at home, tax the rich, etc. That's the exact sort of thing the Nazis did. All you did was say, "No, you're wrong."[/QUOTE] The Nazis built highways, therefore Eisenhower was a Nazi or similar to Nazis.

[QUOTE=Govna;49927945][URL="https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/"]What?[/URL][/QUOTE] What about it? Nothing in there responds to my reasoning about his use of the terms like "Wall Street." [editline]13th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49927978]The Nazis built highways, therefore Eisenhower was a Nazi or similar to Nazis.[/QUOTE] Yes, because I listed one minor similarity. Great job. Thanks for your contribution. (I'm also not calling socialists Nazis. So... your point is irrelevant anyway)

I just want to add tariffs on imports is hardly 'socialist' at all, when republican presidents like Coolidge allowed tariffs on imports.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49927959]That's what modern day socialism consists of: put heavy regulation on business, nationalize key industries that you don't feel are efficient enough, put tariffs on imports to encourage business growth at home, tax the rich, etc. That's the exact sort of thing the Nazis did.[/QUOTE] The Nazis actually had no precise economic program, and what they did have wasn't done in the spirit of socialism. Hitler himself said that, [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-OQQ1LhACiwC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=the+basic+feature+of+our+economic+theory+is+that+we+have+no+theory+at+all+hitler&source=bl&ots=tdlnXJ-Enb&sig=TLu37qPxkRYgyvJiKJIb9ZefCSc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2k9jCk7_LAhVnt4MKHf8sDJEQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=the%20basic%20feature%20of%20our%20economic%20theory%20is%20that%20we%20have%20no%20theory%20at%20all%20hitler&f=false]"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[/url] The Nazis never cared about achieving socialism or working towards socialism; all they cared about was creating a system that would allow them to enrich themselves, keep a cartel-like power over all business and make everyone fall in line with the party, and that could meet their rearmament needs and desired goals. The original [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP]25-Point Program[/url] that was adopted by the party, which was the closest thing to socialism they ever professed to love, was only done in the first place in February 1920 to draw in potential new party members who had socialist ideals (because they needed them; [url=https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm]the party at the time only had about ~60 members, but by the end of the year, they had more than 3,000[/url]). What they had was corporatism, not socialism. Meanwhile, they didn't try to achieve autarky the way that Italy and Spain did. In fact, they were more than willing to trade and do business with the United States. There was financial collaboration as much as there was material collaboration. Also, they didn't "tax the rich" the way you're suggesting they did; they didn't push for higher taxes in general because they knew it would lead to economic decline, and they started pushing for reductions as early as June 1933 with the Reinhardt Program. In fact, in 1941, they had a lower personal income tax rate than the United Kingdom did (theirs was 13.7%, and the UK's was more than 23%). There were plenty of rich Nazis, dude. Hjalmar Schacht and Walter Funk both argued for free trade economics, actually, and while Schacht was later dismissed in favor of Goering with his central planning, Funk never was and remained Reich Economics Minister and President of the Reichsbank until the end of the war. Nazi policy in general, whether it concerned economics or politics and government office advancement, argued across the board for Social Darwinism and Darwinian competitiveness between individuals. Hitler himself believed that this kind of system would encourage the best and most worthy to advance to top positions while destroying (or at least suppressing) the inferior individuals in the process. Hardly socialistic. [editline]14th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49927979]What about it? Nothing in there responds to my reasoning about his use of the terms like "Wall Street."[/QUOTE] Except it points out specifically what Sanders is trying to accomplish here and what he means by "Wall Street". It proves he's not just using it as a "demagogic term" as you called it.

[QUOTE=Govna;49928072]The Nazis actually had no precise economic program, and what they did have wasn't done in the spirit of socialism. Hitler himself said that, [URL="https://books.google.com/books?id=-OQQ1LhACiwC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=the+basic+feature+of+our+economic+theory+is+that+we+have+no+theory+at+all+hitler&source=bl&ots=tdlnXJ-Enb&sig=TLu37qPxkRYgyvJiKJIb9ZefCSc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2k9jCk7_LAhVnt4MKHf8sDJEQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=the%20basic%20feature%20of%20our%20economic%20theory%20is%20that%20we%20have%20no%20theory%20at%20all%20hitler&f=false"]"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[/URL] The Nazis never cared about achieving socialism or working towards socialism; all they cared about was creating a system that would allow them to enrich themselves, keep a cartel-like power over all business and make everyone fall in line with the party, and that could meet their rearmament needs and desired goals. The original [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP"]25-Point Program[/URL] that was adopted by the party, which was the closest thing to socialism they ever professed to love, was only done in the first place in February 1920 to draw in potential new party members who had socialist ideals (because they needed them; [URL="https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm"]the party at the time only had about ~60 members, but by the end of the year, they had more than 3,000[/URL]). What they had was corporatism, not socialism. Meanwhile, they didn't try to achieve autarky the way that Italy and Spain did. In fact, they were more than willing to trade and do business with the United States. There was financial collaboration as much as there was material collaboration. Also, they didn't "tax the rich" the way you're suggesting they did; they didn't push for higher taxes in general because they knew it would lead to economic decline, and they started pushing for reductions as early as June 1933 with the Reinhardt Program. In fact, in 1941, they had a lower personal income tax rate than the United Kingdom did (theirs was 13.7%, and the UK's was more than 23%). There were plenty of rich Nazis, dude. Hjalmar Schacht and Walter Funk both argued for free trade economics, actually, and while Schacht was later dismissed in favor of Goering with his central planning, Funk never was and remained Reich Economics Minister and President of the Reichsbank until the end of the war. Nazi policy in general, whether it concerned economics or politics and government office advancement, argued across the board for Social Darwinism and Darwinian competitiveness between individuals. Hitler himself believed that this kind of system would encourage the best and most worthy to advance to top positions while destroying (or at least suppressing) the inferior individuals in the process. Hardly socialistic.[/QUOTE] 2 things: 1) Hitler said a lot of contradictory things about socialism. So, yes, he spoke out against socialism in some cases, but in other cases he spoke highly of it. 2) I'm interested in what they did, not what they said they wanted to do or what specific people in the party said they believed in. What they did was very much in line with modern day socialism, including: - High tariffs to encourage the purchase of products made at home - Nationalization of key industries - Price and wage controls (Nazi Germany saw many of the same product shortages that the government controlled economy of the USSR saw) - Strict government control over 'private' production of goods (de-facto government ownership over the means of production) - Instituted large public jobs programs Also, it wasn't corporatism at all. The only relevant group was the Nazi government, not some collection of social groups that made policy together. Nazi Germany 100% attempted to create autarky. It's so obvious that they're the first example given on the wikipedia page for "autarky." It's a direct question on the GCSE: [URL]http://gcsehistory.org.uk/modernworld/germany/autarky.htm[/URL] [QUOTE]Except it points out specifically what Sanders is trying to accomplish here and what he means by "Wall Street". It proves he's not just using it as a "demagogic term" as you called it.[/QUOTE] That directly contradicts with it's meaning in his "wall street" tax because it taxes all people who use the stock market, not any specific organization.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49928214] That directly contradicts with it's meaning in his "wall street" tax because it taxes all people who use the stock market, not any specific organization.[/QUOTE] His wallstreet tax is so low that you pay 100x more in brokerage fees. It only starts making money when you get into tens of millions or more in a transaction. Normal people will never feel it, high volume and ultra high volume funds that exist to trade and nothing else will feel it though but these institutions destabilize markets anyways and should be curbed