Bad news for Bernie Sanders: poll shows Americans leery of socialists for president

[Chris]

You need to read this with a grain of salt in that the poll doesn't define socialism and Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat like most Democrats and, for that matter, Republicans.

Bad news for Bernie Sanders: poll shows Americans leery of socialists for president (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/22/americans-leery-socialist-president-poll/#ixzz3dufxtFs4)


Less than half of Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who is a socialist, findings in a new poll released Monday that delivered a blow to Sen. Bernard Sanders‘ presidential aspirations.

The Gallup survey found that Americans have grown increasingly accepting of well-qualified presidential candidates from most racial, ethnic and religious groups. But socialists ranked at the bottom, with just 47 percent of American saying they would be willing to vote one and 50 percent saying they would not cast a ballot for a socialist president.

Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent who is waging a long-shot run for the Democratic presidential nomination, has proudly labeled himself a socialist throughout his more than three decades in politics.

He is the only candidate to distinguish himself in that way....

[Common]

Everything ive read has said the same thing, that america doesnt take to socialist or progressive candidates. Along with that americans dont take to far right conservative candidates either.

[Bob]

Listening to Sanders rant against the rich, one would naturally need to do what?

Take it from them? This is illegal
Tax them to death? Is that not what happens right now?

Wealth happens to be transporable. Look at jobs. They moved away. So can wealth.

The wealthy pay our bills. We earn by working for them.

And Sanders whining over Citizens united. That is not corporations united, it is citizens of the USA.

He treats them like pig crap. They are just citizens. And he mocks the tea party. Due to the Tea party, we might end up with the republicans being able to tell the truth, that this country is running out of money. We borrow heavily just to survive.

Government can print money. We recall inflation too.

I see no party trying to shape up Democrats. They are precisely why this country is in deep poo poo.

They sloganeer. Republicans want to put the country on a good economic foundation. Democrats hate the rich too much to do that.

[TrueBlue]

You need to read this with a grain of salt in that the poll doesn't define socialism and Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat like most Democrats and, for that matter, Republicans.

Bad news for Bernie Sanders: poll shows Americans leery of socialists for president (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/22/americans-leery-socialist-president-poll/#ixzz3dufxtFs4)
So the other half of Americans are the actual smart ones. They much prefer to go with the Democratic Party that actually helps them in so many vital ways the Conservative Party doesn't. They obviously realize that with the Conservative Party they would literally be left naked out on the street holding their front with their right hand and their rear with their left.

[Common Sense]

America isn't ready for Vermont style governance....

[Bob]

Everything ive read has said the same thing, that america doesnt take to socialist or progressive candidates. Along with that americans dont take to far right conservative candidates either.

That I am aware of, we have no far right republicans running. But Bernie Sanders is hard core to the bone socialist. Hillary is a loud mouth staff abusing woman.

[Mister D]

America isn't ready for Vermont style governance....

Perhaps because America isn't 95% white like Vermont.

[Common]

That I am aware of, we have no far right republicans running. But Bernie Sanders is hard core to the bone socialist. Hillary is a loud mouth staff abusing woman.

Scott Walker

[Mister D]

What kind of country do I live in where a man like Scott Walker is "far right"?

[Chris]

So the other half of Americans are the actual smart ones. They much prefer to go with the Democratic Party that actually helps them in so many vital ways the Conservative Party doesn't. They obviously realize that with the Conservative Party they would literally be left naked out on the street holding their front with their right hand and their rear with their left.

Do you live in England? What Conservative Party? Also did you miss that I said both Dems and Reps are social democrats?

[Bob]

Scott Walker

I will see if I can prove what you just claimed. But I don't expect to find results.

[Chris]

That I am aware of, we have no far right republicans running. But Bernie Sanders is hard core to the bone socialist. Hillary is a loud mouth staff abusing woman.

Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat like other Dems and most Reps.

[Chris]

What kind of country do I live in where a man like Scott Walker is "far right"?

A populist Amerca.

[Mister D]

A populist Amerca.

I was thinking an America where no one offers a genuine political alternative.

[Common]

What kind of country do I live in where a man like Scott Walker is "far right"?

Hes the most right of the candidates, you need to read up on not only his wisconsin recorde but his prior.

[Bob]

So the other half of Americans are the actual smart ones. They much prefer to go with the Democratic Party that actually helps them in so many vital ways the Conservative Party doesn't. They obviously realize that with the Conservative Party they would literally be left naked out on the street holding their front with their right hand and their rear with their left.

Get real TrueBlue

Ignoring just presidents and taking everything into account

YOUR party has had the only 3 super majorities in the past 100 years.

That gave you complete control of the USA.

Republicans in the past 100 years have not had complete control.. Not one time.

The first Democrat era of modern times you gave us the new deal. A lot was booted out by the Supreme court.
That remaining buried this country in massive debt.

I do not agree with Chris that republicans got to run the country. Being president is not running the country. Ask Obama since he lost two houses.

Phase two was Johnson and his great society. Not to mention his war with Vietnam. But that dug our grave deeper. We owe China and Japan plus others an enormous sum of money. Even the American citizens who not only pay taxes to the Government, but loan it an enormous sum of money still means the Government is in deep debt.

It shuffled the chairs on the titanic, but it is still sinking.

You have Obama that laid a massive debt on our backs. When he is gone, his bills will remain as his legacy.

He will amass ten trillion dollars in national debt.

We know what you democrats can do.

Time to hand over not only both houses, but the presidency and give us a crack at fixing it.

[Common]

I was thinking an America where no one offers a genuine political alternative.

You live in an America where a supposedly liberal President shoves a republican rich mans agenda down the countries throats with the help of a Republican House that strongarmed, threatened and removed a rep that didnt toe the line on OBAMAS trade bill from his committee chairmanship. THAT is the america we live in and America of deceit and phonies

[gettit]

oh, the Dem's "help" the ticks, all right. no doubt about that. and they steal from the unborn to do it, by printing more money than our economy can justify.

[Mister D]

Hes the most right of the candidates, you need to read up on not only his wisconsin recorde but his prior.

That's precisely what I mean. What makes him "far right" is just...well not remotely extreme or radical.

[Chris]

I was thinking an America where no one offers a genuine political alternative.

I think in the populist view--and Sanders is a populist--any alternatives are pushed out as extremes.

[Bob]

Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat like other Dems and most Reps.

That is your opinion as I already knew. and most republicans are no Bernie Sanders.

Chris, at least had republicans had the super majorities as Democrats have had, you would have some basis of your claims. They had 3 of them. We got shut out. (Supermajority controls both houses plus the presidency)

[Mister D]

I think in the populist view--and Sanders is a populist--any alternatives are pushed out as extremes.

Yes, that's a good point. In fact, even things that are innovative but still inpursuit of the same overall goals.

[Bob]

You live in an America where a supposedly liberal President shoves a republican rich mans agenda down the countries throats with the help of a Republican House that strongarmed, threatened and removed a rep that didnt toe the line on OBAMAS trade bill from his committee chairmanship. THAT is the america we live in and America of deceit and phonies

Meadows was only booted out for blocking the congress from having the full debate on the floor.

[Chris]

Yes, that's a good point. In fact, even things that are innovative but still inpursuit of the same overall goals.

Populists say they're for the little man against the rich and megacorps. They all say this and try to paint opponents as the opposite. The Dems have an advantage because they've been playing that song a long time. So good Hillary in the top 0.1% comes off as a populist. The Reps are getting the point and playing catch up, Rand Paul is a big time populist, but there's a general movement known as reform Republicanism (conservatism?) to do this.

[Chris]

That is your opinion as I already knew. and most republicans are no Bernie Sanders.

Chris, at least had republicans had the super majorities as Democrats have had, you would have some basis of your claims. They had 3 of them. We got shut out. (Supermajority controls both houses plus the presidency)


Socialism is anarchist. Sanders is no anarchist. Socialism would put the means of production in the hands of the workers. Sanders doesn't want to do that. He's a social democrat. He wants to manage the free market to achieve what be believes is social justice. In those respects he's no different than a Republican.

Not sure what you're going on about supermajorities and why that matters to this topic.

Oh, and 99% of everything posted is opinion. It's a forum.

[texan]

Bernie gets the reputation of being a socialist, but his definition doesn't really fit the mold. I have learned to like and appreciate Bernie, he is who he is and isn't afraid of it.

[Chris]

Bernie gets the reputation of being a socialist, but his definition doesn't really fit the mold. I have learned to like and appreciate Bernie, he is who he is and isn't afraid of it.

I'd agree with that. His socialism is the popular vernacular meaning of it, which doesn't really fit socialist ideology. I can appreciate his honesty, he comes out and says what he believes and doesn't try to closet it the way Hillaary and others do, including Reps.

[TrueBlue]

Get real @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308)

Ignoring just presidents and taking everything into account

YOUR party has had the only 3 super majorities in the past 100 years.

That gave you complete control of the USA.

Republicans in the past 100 years have not had complete control.. Not one time.

The first Democrat era of modern times you gave us the new deal. A lot was booted out by the Supreme court.
That remaining buried this country in massive debt.

I do not agree with Chris that republicans got to run the country. Being president is not running the country. Ask Obama since he lost two houses.

Phase two was Johnson and his great society. Not to mention his war with Vietnam. But that dug our grave deeper. We owe China and Japan plus others an enormous sum of money. Even the American citizens who not only pay taxes to the Government, but loan it an enormous sum of money still means the Government is in deep debt.

It shuffled the chairs on the titanic, but it is still sinking.

You have Obama that laid a massive debt on our backs. When he is gone, his bills will remain as his legacy.

He will amass ten trillion dollars in national debt.

We know what you democrats can do.

Time to hand over not only both houses, but the presidency and give us a crack at fixing it.
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/icq/biggrin.gif Going back to the failed policies of the past under Republicans is not going to cut it for the American people, Bob. You are quite disillusioned if you think that, my friend. When pinned one against the other the political party that actually helps the people more is the Democratic Party. Sorry to see that you are in denial about that fact, Bob. But facts are facts. What have Republicans honestly done for the American people such as to help the poor, the middle class, the elderly, women, minorities, to include LGBT citizens, the environment? How have they helped all those groups that would be in dire straits today without the Democratic Party?

[magicmike]

You need to read this with a grain of salt in that the poll doesn't define socialism and Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat like most Democrats and, for that matter, Republicans.

Bad news for Bernie Sanders: poll shows Americans leery of socialists for president (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/22/americans-leery-socialist-president-poll/#ixzz3dufxtFs4)

Looks like he's got a better chance than the republitarians Rand Paul, who's polling a pitiful 5% among his party.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/bernie-sanders/

[Bob]

Socialism is anarchist. Sanders is no anarchist. Socialism would put the means of production in the hands of the workers. Sanders doesn't want to do that. He's a social democrat. He wants to manage the free market to achieve what be believes is social justice. In those respects he's no different than a Republican.

Not sure what you're going on about supermajorities and why that matters to this topic.

Oh, and 99% of everything posted is opinion. It's a forum.

Right. I read more of your opinion.

I am shocked that you don't have clue one as to what a super majority is.

Chris, it is the holding of everything. Obama came in and had a strong hand. A super majority means one party runs the country.

Democrats have.

Republicans have not. Makes your analysis of republicans moot.

[Bob]

Looks like he's got a better chance than the republitarians Rand Paul, who's polling a pitiful 5% among his party.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/bernie-sanders/

I told this forum from the get go, Rand never had a chance.

[magicmike]

Get real @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308)

Ignoring just presidents and taking everything into account

YOUR party has had the only 3 super majorities in the past 100 years.

That gave you complete control of the USA.

Republicans in the past 100 years have not had complete control.. Not one time.

The first Democrat era of modern times you gave us the new deal. A lot was booted out by the Supreme court.
That remaining buried this country in massive debt.

I do not agree with Chris that republicans got to run the country. Being president is not running the country. Ask Obama since he lost two houses.

Phase two was Johnson and his great society. Not to mention his war with Vietnam. But that dug our grave deeper. We owe China and Japan plus others an enormous sum of money. Even the American citizens who not only pay taxes to the Government, but loan it an enormous sum of money still means the Government is in deep debt.

It shuffled the chairs on the titanic, but it is still sinking.

You have Obama that laid a massive debt on our backs. When he is gone, his bills will remain as his legacy.

He will amass ten trillion dollars in national debt.

We know what you democrats can do.

Time to hand over not only both houses, but the presidency and give us a crack at fixing it.

I could say something about what shape this country was in financially when Obama took over and how much better it is today (including noting our debt is directly tied to Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts, and Bush's recession) but what does it matter?

If you personally support the Republican party, that's more than enough for me to vote Democrat.

[Bob]

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/icq/biggrin.gif Going back to the failed policies of the past under Republicans is not going to cut it for the American people, Bob. You are quite disillusioned if you think that, my friend. When pinned one against the other the political party that actually helps the people more is the Democratic Party. Sorry to see that you are in denial about that fact, Bob. But facts are facts. What have Republicans honestly done for the American people such as to help the poor, the middle class, the elderly, women, minorities, to include LGBT citizens, the environment? How have they helped all those groups that would be in dire straits today without the Democratic Party?

There has never been failed policies of republicans. Even Reagan dealt with Tip O'Neil the then speaker of the house.

Democrats had the new deal. That failed to cure the depression.
The Great society. This failed too.

You guys pretend you helped the poor. You only paid them. Just enough to encourage them not to work.

Republicans will solve a lot of problems if they ever get both houses plus the presidency. We have the super majority in the house. We need it in the Senate as well. With a republican president, this country will prosper.

I think of all Americans, not just a few that lack goals, means or education. But we will help those as well.

Politics is to run the country. Not create Santa Claus. .

[Bob]

I could say something about what shape this country was in financially when Obama took over and how much better it is today (including noting our debt is directly tied to Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts, and Bush's recession) but what does it matter?

If you personally support the Republican party, that's more than enough for me to vote Democrat.

Lets pretend the shit hit the fan say in 2003-4. It could be possible to blame Bush had the country went into the toilet. But the Democrats kept blocking reforms to save housing. This tanked the economy. Take a bite of that.

[magicmike]

Right. I read more of your opinion.

I am shocked that you don't have clue one as to what a super majority is.

Chris, it is the holding of everything. Obama came in and had a strong hand. A super majority means one party runs the country.

Democrats have.

Republicans have not. Makes your analysis of republicans moot.


Let's see if you can answer a question intelligently.

How many days of Obama's presidency has he enjoyed a supermajority?

[Chris]

Looks like he's got a better chance than the republitarians Rand Paul, who's polling a pitiful 5% among his party.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/bernie-sanders/


Rand is not a libertarian, Mike.

Sanders, by your link, is doing worse than some Reps. And he's dominated by Clinton.

Keep in mind the Rep field is spread out so these early polls mean little.

[Chris]

Right. I read more of your opinion.

I am shocked that you don't have clue one as to what a super majority is.

Chris, it is the holding of everything. Obama came in and had a strong hand. A super majority means one party runs the country.

Democrats have.

Republicans have not. Makes your analysis of republicans moot.


Again you saying what I post is opinion is redundant.

Nice ad hom but I didn't say I didn't understand what super majorities were but that they have nothing to do with the topic.

And here I am caught up with your incessant talking about talking and talking off topic.

[Chris]

...

I do not agree with Chris that republicans got to run the country. ...

I have said nothing about Reps running the country. Are you lost again, unsure what thread you're in?

[Chris]

Let's see if you can answer a question intelligently.

How many days of Obama's presidency has he enjoyed a supermajority?

Super majorities must be in some other thread, Can you guys go find that and post there? I'd rather talk about the topic, Sanders.

[Bob]

I have said nothing about Reps running the country. Are you lost again, unsure what thread you're in?

Fine Chris. Since you did not say they ran the country, how can you claim they are the same as Democrats?

[Bob]

Let's see if you can answer a question intelligently.

How many days of Obama's presidency has he enjoyed a supermajority?

2009 and 2010. When he passed the ACA.

[Chris]

Fine Chris. Since you did not say they ran the country, how can you claim they are the same as Democrats?

Because they're all social democrats. Why do I need to repeat myself.

[Bob]

Super majorities must be in some other thread, Can you guys go find that and post there? I'd rather talk about the topic, Sanders.

Yet you discussed Rand Paul. He is not Bernie Sanders.

Sanders can't run the country. He won't be elected.

[Bob]

Because they're all social democrats. Why do I need to repeat myself.

I enjoy you being wrong twice.

[Chris]

Yet you discussed Rand Paul. He is not Bernie Sanders.

Sanders can't run the country. He won't be elected.


It didn't divert discussion of the topic, Sanders, social democrat, openly so, unlike other Dems and Reps, and for his openness, his honesty, and because of that polls show people are leery of him. Read the OP.

[Chris]

I enjoy you being wrong twice.

Stop trolling, bob.

[Bob]

The OP


You need to read this with a grain of salt in that the poll doesn't define socialism and Sanders is not a socialist but a social democrat like most Democrats and, for that matter, Republicans.

See the bold. I believe I too have discussed all of those.

[Lineman]

Too much sloganeering and talking point parroting, Bob.


Listening to Sanders rant against the rich, one would naturally need to do what?

Take it from them? This is illegal
Tax them to death? Is that not what happens right now?

Wealth happens to be transporable. Look at jobs. They moved away. So can wealth.

The wealthy pay our bills. We earn by working for them.

And Sanders whining over Citizens united. That is not corporations united, it is citizens of the USA.

He treats them like pig crap. They are just citizens. And he mocks the tea party. Due to the Tea party, we might end up with the republicans being able to tell the truth, that this country is running out of money. We borrow heavily just to survive.

Government can print money. We recall inflation too.

I see no party trying to shape up Democrats. They are precisely why this country is in deep poo poo.

They sloganeer. Republicans want to put the country on a good economic foundation. Democrats hate the rich too much to do that.

[magicmike]

2009 and 2010. When he passed the ACA.

Wrong. Do you know what the word "days" means?

[Bob]

Too much sloganeering and talking point parroting, Bob.

Well, you are a delight with your talking point.

[Bob]

Wrong. Do you know what the word "days" means?

No, you are the one poster that knows what the word days means.

You can't understand years though.

[magicmike]

Rand is not a libertarian, Mike.

Sanders, by your link, is doing worse than some Reps. And he's dominated by Clinton.

Keep in mind the Rep field is spread out so these early polls mean little.

Yes, that's why I call him a republitarians.

I believe Sanders could draw tens of millions more votes than any 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate.

As far as his chances, I agree that Sanders getting elected is a long shot. But he will have a role in shaping the party Platform, something the republitarians or Libertarians will never accomplish.

[magicmike]

Super majorities must be in some other thread, Can you guys go find that and post there? I'd rather talk about the topic, Sanders.

Sure.

[Chris]

Yes, that's why I call him a republitarians.

I believe Sanders could draw tens of millions more votes than any 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate.

As far as his chances, I agree that Sanders getting elected is a long shot. But he will have a role in shaping the party Platform, something the republitarians or Libertarians will never accomplish.

I would compare Sanders to Ron Paul not Rand.

[Green Arrow]

Polls exist for one purpose: to sway public opinion. Anyone that thinks polls exist to accurately gauge American opinion is naive.

[Common]

That's precisely what I mean. What makes him "far right" is just...well not remotely extreme or radical.

That depends on your views, to me screwing workers makes you a piece of shit, to others that makes him a hero.

[Chris]

Polls exist for one purpose: to sway public opinion. Anyone that thinks polls exist to accurately gauge American opinion is naive.

They can be but this is reported by the Washington Times, fairly rightwing, and a Gallup poll.

[texan]

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/icq/biggrin.gif Going back to the failed policies of the past under Republicans is not going to cut it for the American people, Bob. You are quite disillusioned if you think that, my friend. When pinned one against the other the political party that actually helps the people more is the Democratic Party. Sorry to see that you are in denial about that fact, Bob. But facts are facts. What have Republicans honestly done for the American people such as to help the poor, the middle class, the elderly, women, minorities, to include LGBT citizens, the environment? How have they helped all those groups that would be in dire straits today without the Democratic Party?

Great talking point "go back to the failed policies" Fing hilarious.............Got news for you pal both parties policies generally seem to suck. You think this BS economy is the best we can do? Then vote for more of this sad shit we have been spoon fed. OR vote for the business friendly party and maybe we can get back to work.

Can you share some more cliches with us Robot?

[Lineman]

Id like to know why republicans arent running Fred Thompson.

Hes got bona fides, I mean you know hes got that reverse mortgage going for him, and he, like Reagan, was and actor, so theres that too.

[Chris]

That depends on your views, to me screwing workers makes you a piece of shit, to others that makes him a hero.

Which is a very populist, social democratic view. You should like Sanders, other than he's called a socialist, which labels him an outlier.

[Chris]

OK, so I wanted to see what Bernie says, does he call himself a socialist, and, to be honest, he's ambiguous: Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. 52 percent of Democrats are OK with that. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-is-an-avowed-socialist-and-democrats-are-actually-pretty-ok-with-that/):


When he first won election to the House in 1990, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) embraced his political identity. "I am a socialist and everyone knows that," Sanders said, responding to an ad that tried to link him to the regime of Fidel Castro.

He continued: "They also understand that my kind of democratic socialism has nothing to do with authoritarian communism."

Ambiguous.

Naturally, no one can dictate the way people use words. The story, from last April, goes on to try and define socialism:


Times change. With the Cold War fading in the rear view mirror, being nice to Cuba isn't the political liability that it once was. And no longer does the term "socialist" carry the same stigma it once did -- in part because self-identified socialists are few and far between.

Gallup used to include Socialist in its poll but dropped it in 1948, the story continues and then show this chart of Socialisms popularity:

http://i.snag.gy/OxY0C.jpg

Chart is somewhat misleadding in putting 6% at top instead of 100%!

It goes on:


Communism and Communists are not socialism and Socialists, but the distinction is increasingly being lost. Last year, a Reason-Rupe poll asked people about their attitudes toward various economic systems. More than half of respondents viewed capitalism favorably, while 36 percent viewed socialism positively. Among Democrats, capitalism and socialism were viewed similarly, with 52 percent of those responding giving a thumbs up. (Slightly more Democrats viewed socialism very favorably, but not to a point of statistical significance.)

Heck, most people don't know...and probably don't care:


That's assuming people knew what socialism was. Asked to define the term, one-fifth said it referred to government control of the economy. A quarter said they didn't know. Other research suggests that younger people are both less hostile to the concept and less likely to know what it is, having lived through less of the Cold War.

In the end:


So when Bernie Sanders, avowed socialist, announces his presidential bid on Thursday, he will not have a large pool of Socialists from which to draw support. But he will also probably not have to deal with any ads linking him to Cuba. If in 1990 "they" understood that Sanders' form of socialism wasn't the same as Castro's communism, now, Democrats in particular don't really care.

Somewhat amazingly, socialism has seen its political slate nearly wiped clean.

So says the writer at WaPo.

[Tahuyaman]

Bad news for Bernie Sanders: poll shows Americans leery of socialists for president

Most people did not need to look at a poll result to figure this out. I suspect this is not stunning news to Sanders. Even casual observers know he has absolutely zero chance.

[Chris]

Most people did not need to look at a poll result to figure this out. I suspect this is not stunning news to Sanders. Even casual observers know he has absolutely zero chance.

And yet, as posted just above, "Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. 52 percent of Democrats are OK with that."

[Tahuyaman]

The whacky extreme left is now the mainstream of the Democrat party.

[magicmike]

OK, so I wanted to see what Bernie says, does he call himself a socialist, and, to be honest, he's ambiguous: Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. 52 percent of Democrats are OK with that. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-is-an-avowed-socialist-and-democrats-are-actually-pretty-ok-with-that/):



Ambiguous.

Naturally, no one can dictate the way people use words. The story, from last April, goes on to try and define socialism:



Gallup used to include Socialist in its poll but dropped it in 1948, the story continues and then show this chart of Socialisms popularity:

http://i.snag.gy/OxY0C.jpg

Chart is somewhat misleadding in putting 6% at top instead of 100%!

It goes on:



Heck, most people don't know...and probably don't care:



In the end:



So says the writer at WaPo.

How have Libertarian and republitarian Presidential candidates done?

[Tahuyaman]

How have Libertarian and republitarian Presidential candidates done?


Libertarians have done poorly. Can't answer the second part as there's no such thing a "Republitarian".

[Bob]

We don't today define the Republican party nor the Democratic party using the standards of 1860. If we did, Democrats would be the slave owning party and the republicans the party fighting slavery.

Yet using socialism, we are told to use a very fixed definition equally as old.

We are told that the Nazi party can't be socialism since the 1930's era party does not fit the 1860 or old at least, definition of socialism.

Define it as the path to make it easier. What is the path of socialism.. A take over of the social fabric of freedom.

Regulations by government is one way to define take over. The ACA is a take over. Social Security is a take over. Disability care is a take over. More military is a take over. More inspection of your income is a take over. Benefits at some age is a take over. I can go on and on. My definition is the path. The end game will be very clear once the socialists gain their goals. Bernie wants to take over more power that the rich presently have. He will regulate them more, tax them more and in general practice socialism.

A hearing on CSPAN of a live hearing shows the costs of the ACA have not yet hit us all hard. They say to expect your costs for insurance it skyrocket. Fixing a super bad system by tinkering at the edges reminds me of the fix done to Social Security. It began as a very low cost program that the paycheck of workers barely noticed at the time. Today it is major part of your paycheck losses. And the system is broken. Expect more and more costs, perhaps lower benefits and in short the socialist program exposed major flaws back prior to 1984.

I tried to hit some the problem spots of socialism.

[Ransom]

How can we be leery of socialists but tolerate candidates from Kenya.

[magicmike]

Libertarians have done poorly. Can't answer the second part as there's no such thing a "Republitarian".


Republitarian: A Republican politician who favors the illogical principles of Libertarians but.lack the balls to switch to the Libertarian Party because of the inevitable losing their ass in an election.

[Peter1469]

Republitarian: A Republican politician who favors the illogical principles of Libertarians but.lack the balls to switch to the Libertarian Party because of the inevitable losing their ass in an election.
lol

[Chris]

How have Libertarian and republitarian Presidential candidates done?

Why would I know? Go do some research and return and tell us, and then tell us the relevance of that to Bernie.

[Chris]

Republitarian: A Republican politician who favors the illogical principles of Libertarians but.lack the balls to switch to the Libertarian Party because of the inevitable losing their ass in an election.

You should start a new thread on the "illogical principles of Libertarians" -- I would love to discuss it.

[Tahuyaman]

Republitarian: A Republican politician who favors the illogical principles of Libertarians but.lack the balls to switch to the Libertarian Party because of the inevitable losing their ass in an election.


lol

That's the only appropriate response to that.

[Green Arrow]

OK, so I wanted to see what Bernie says, does he call himself a socialist, and, to be honest, he's ambiguous: Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. 52 percent of Democrats are OK with that. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-is-an-avowed-socialist-and-democrats-are-actually-pretty-ok-with-that/):



Ambiguous.

Naturally, no one can dictate the way people use words. The story, from last April, goes on to try and define socialism:



Gallup used to include Socialist in its poll but dropped it in 1948, the story continues and then show this chart of Socialisms popularity:

http://i.snag.gy/OxY0C.jpg

Chart is somewhat misleadding in putting 6% at top instead of 100%!

It goes on:



Heck, most people don't know...and probably don't care:



In the end:



So says the writer at WaPo.

What is so ambiguous about democratic socialism?

[Chris]

What is so ambiguous about democratic socialism?

What the Sanders said was ambiguous, he claims to be a socialist and a social democrat. I think the terms are distinct. One is about producers owning the means of production and the other about redistribution of wealth.

[Green Arrow]

What the Sanders said was ambiguous, he claims to be a socialist and a social democrat. I think the terms are distinct. One is about producers owning the means of production and the other about redistribution of wealth.

What you quoted said democratic socialist, not social democrat.

[The Xl]

I don't think he's going to win. However, it would be so great if he and rand paul got the nomination, trump yoloed it up and ran as a huge independent ala Perot, and if Gary Johnson managed to make some noise.

No more of these corrupt, bought and paid for establishment republicrats

[Tahuyaman]

What you quoted said democratic socialist, not social democrat.

Doesn't matter. Bernie Sanders is a self described "Socialist". The modifiers have been added intentionally to make his views look like something other than what they are. He's trying to fool people and it's only working with the extreme left that was already fooled anyway.

[Green Arrow]

What you quoted said democratic socialist, not social democrat.
Chris?

[Chris]

Chris?

I see no difference, given what Sanders advocates. Perhaps there is.

[Green Arrow]

I see no difference, given what Sanders advocates. Perhaps there is.

There is a difference. Social democracy is used as a bridge between capitalism and socialism by the democratic socialists. The difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist is, a social democrat will stop there. A democratic socialist will then continue to implement reforms through the democratic process that ultimately move us beyond capitalism and social democracy into direct socialism.

[Chris]

There is a difference. Social democracy is used as a bridge between capitalism and socialism by the democratic socialists. The difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist is, a social democrat will stop there. A democratic socialist will then continue to implement reforms through the democratic process that ultimately move us beyond capitalism and social democracy into direct socialism.

Well, OK,,, I see the distinction you're making. Both seek redistributive justice through the government, the democratic socialist also seeks to change society. Is that close?

[Green Arrow]

Well, OK,,, I see the distinction you're making. Both seek redistributive justice through the government, the democratic socialist also seeks to change society. Is that close?

Close enough, I suppose.

[Chris]

Close enough, I suppose.

:D Could spend days on it. But I was just trying to reword what you said in terms I'm familiar with. But I agree they are distinct, and I missed that earlier.

[OGIS]

So the other half of Americans are the actual smart ones. They much prefer to go with the Democratic Party that actually helps them in so many vital ways the Conservative Party doesn't. They obviously realize that with the Conservative Party they would literally be left naked out on the street holding their front with their right hand and their rear with their left.

And then get beaten up or killed by Thug Police for the crime of indecent exposure.