Bernie Sanders 2016!

[Llamalandia]

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/8/vermonts_bernie_sanders_becomes_first_socialist

He's self identified as a socialist. maybe not by European standards though even there judging by his rhetoric I think many would apply the label.
But yeah, even if that 36% figure is accurate how many of them vote or would vote? Besides you turn off all moderates and centrists which is the key to dem electoral victory.

He can call himself whatever he wants. He is demonstrably not a socialist. Even Sanders conflates socialism with social democracy. Anyone aware of the distinction can clearly see that Sanders is a social democrat.

I think I'll leave it to Sanders true supporters to defend his socialist street cred.

[Sciongrad]

Bull shit, my friend.

36% of Americans view the word "socialism" positively. When you add in the fact that Bernie isn't actually a socialist, he's a social democrat with views that a lot of Americans, and probably a majority of self-described liberals, plus all progressives, could get behind, it's not hard to believe that he'd win against a woman who ran her company into the fucking ground and flat-out sounds stupid whenever she talks, and a papist who wears sweater vests and whose name means anal sex froth.

He might do ok, against fiorina, but I doubt he'd best her. If nothing else she'd play the gender card and cry her eyes out at a debate or something. I'm really no fan of either of these people and absolutely loath Fiorina, but I am at least realistic in my appraisals of their chances. Liz Warrren could likely give both of them a pretty decent fight though.

If you honestly think a legitimate candidate for president could beat anyone, let alone an increasingly popular alternative to Elizabeth Warren, by crying and appealing to gender in a country that is, by all accounts, still struggling with entrenched misogyny, then you're delusional.

[Sciongrad]

He can call himself whatever he wants. He is demonstrably not a socialist. Even Sanders conflates socialism with social democracy. Anyone aware of the distinction can clearly see that Sanders is a social democrat.

I think I'll leave it to Sanders true supporters to defend his socialist street cred.

I'm a Sanders supporter and a political science major and I can tell you Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.

[Llamalandia]

Sorry but that sounds somewhat delusional. I mean, America may not like social conservativism but it absolutely reviles socialism at least nominally. Sanders would get owned no matter who he faced. Warren would have a decent shot against either of them, but I don't think eve nshe could win.

Bull shit, my friend.

36% of Americans view the word "socialism" positively. When you add in the fact that Bernie isn't actually a socialist, he's a social democrat with views that a lot of Americans, and probably a majority of self-described liberals, plus all progressives, could get behind, it's not hard to believe that he'd win against a woman who ran her company into the fucking ground and flat-out sounds stupid whenever she talks, and a papist who wears sweater vests and whose name means anal sex froth.

Also, guessing that the liberals and progressive are the 36% of americans you cite in the poll viewing socialism favorably. I doubt that adds much beyond the 36% and given hat you've turned off all moderates and likely energized the republican base even more well that doesn't add up to electoral victory. That said, I will admit, I would have a hard time voting for fiorina, she'd win my state anyway, but even if it were a contested state I still don't know if I could actually vote for her, though, damn a failed ceo vs a socialist ehh horible choice either way.

[Llamalandia]

He might do ok, against fiorina, but I doubt he'd best her. If nothing else she'd play the gender card and cry her eyes out at a debate or something. I'm really no fan of either of these people and absolutely loath Fiorina, but I am at least realistic in my appraisals of their chances. Liz Warrren could likely give both of them a pretty decent fight though.

If you honestly think a legitimate candidate for president could beat anyone, let alone an increasingly popular alternative to Elizabeth Warren, by crying and appealing to gender in a country that is, by all accounts, still struggling with entrenched misogyny, then you're delusional.

You'd be surprised, I believe if I'm not too much mistaken hiliary got a decent bump in the polls during the primary gainst obama by turning on the tears and "showing real emotion".

[Llamalandia]

I think I'll leave it to Sanders true supporters to defend his socialist street cred.

I'm a Sanders supporter and a political science major and I can tell you Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.

I doubt most people care about the distinction, no offense. I mean, doing a quick google search brings up this page, which frankly looks to me like it is basically saying socialism=communism. In that sense ok, I'll grant that sanders isn't that far to the left, he isn't calling for government control of the means of production or anything (which is what communism in practice does). Still, essentially, it appears, that in america we call, social democracy socialism and real socialism is called communism.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Bull shit, my friend.

36% of Americans view the word "socialism" positively. When you add in the fact that Bernie isn't actually a socialist, he's a social democrat with views that a lot of Americans, and probably a majority of self-described liberals, plus all progressives, could get behind, it's not hard to believe that he'd win against a woman who ran her company into the fucking ground and flat-out sounds stupid whenever she talks, and a papist who wears sweater vests and whose name means anal sex froth.

He might do ok, against fiorina, but I doubt he'd best her. If nothing else she'd play the gender card and cry her eyes out at a debate or something. I'm really no fan of either of these people and absolutely loath Fiorina, but I am at least realistic in my appraisals of their chances. Liz Warrren could likely give both of them a pretty decent fight though.

Then I guess we have a disagreement. Not that we'll ever know, of course.

Bull shit, my friend.

36% of Americans view the word "socialism" positively. When you add in the fact that Bernie isn't actually a socialist, he's a social democrat with views that a lot of Americans, and probably a majority of self-described liberals, plus all progressives, could get behind, it's not hard to believe that he'd win against a woman who ran her company into the fucking ground and flat-out sounds stupid whenever she talks, and a papist who wears sweater vests and whose name means anal sex froth.

n Vermont, Bernie Sanders to become the country’s first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Running as an independent, Sanders won 65% of the vote, easily beating his Republican opponent Rich Tarrant. We speak with Sanders about what it means to the country’s first socialist senator.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/8/vermonts_bernie_sanders_becomes_first_socialist

He's self identified as a socialist. maybe not by European standards though even there judging by his rhetoric I think many would apply the label.
But yeah, even if that 36% figure is accurate how many of them vote or would vote? Besides you turn off all moderates and centrists which is the key to dem electoral victory.

I could call myself a capitalist but when I go and argue for the abolition of private property a reasonable person would realize it wasn't true. Sanders's views are demonstrably social democratic. He vies for the Nordic system, essentially - which is social democracy. I'm almost 100% sure he knows the difference, and calls himself a socialist because that's what Americans will call him anyway. He embraces it rather than fighting it, turning it into something that maybe isn't a hellish ideology.

[Sciongrad]

If you honestly think a legitimate candidate for president could beat anyone, let alone an increasingly popular alternative to Elizabeth Warren, by crying and appealing to gender in a country that is, by all accounts, still struggling with entrenched misogyny, then you're delusional.

You'd be surprised, I believe if I'm not too much mistaken hiliary got a decent bump in the polls during the primary gainst obama by turning on the tears and "showing real emotion".

To my knowledge, that's a flagrant mistruth. Even by looking up "Hillary Clinton crying" I got essentially no results, and certainly none that suggest crying somehow boosted her standing among democrats. Frankly, I think you're trying to defend the potential of a Fiorina candidacy (which has no actual potential) to justify your vast underestimation of Sanders' chances by bring up nonsense like "crying wins votes" and "women obviously are more politically viable than men."

[Prussia-Steinbach]

He can call himself whatever he wants. He is demonstrably not a socialist. Even Sanders conflates socialism with social democracy. Anyone aware of the distinction can clearly see that Sanders is a social democrat.

I think I'll leave it to Sanders true supporters to defend his socialist street cred.

People who know political theory beyond "conservative vs. liberal" in the American terms can tell you he's not an actual socialist.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=socialism+definition

[Llamalandia]

He might do ok, against fiorina, but I doubt he'd best her. If nothing else she'd play the gender card and cry her eyes out at a debate or something. I'm really no fan of either of these people and absolutely loath Fiorina, but I am at least realistic in my appraisals of their chances. Liz Warrren could likely give both of them a pretty decent fight though.

Then I guess we have a disagreement. Not that we'll ever know, of course.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/8/vermonts_bernie_sanders_becomes_first_socialist

He's self identified as a socialist. maybe not by European standards though even there judging by his rhetoric I think many would apply the label.
But yeah, even if that 36% figure is accurate how many of them vote or would vote? Besides you turn off all moderates and centrists which is the key to dem electoral victory.

I could call myself a capitalist but when I go and argue for the abolition of private property a reasonable person would realize it wasn't true. Sanders's views are demonstrably social democratic. He vies for the Nordic system, essentially - which is social democracy. I'm almost 100% sure he knows the difference, and calls himself a socialist because that's what Americans will call him anyway. He embraces it rather than fighting it, turning it into something that maybe isn't a hellish ideology.

As an American I have and always will call the nordic system socialist. I have read the term social democracy before, but basically just interpret it as socialism. But that's the thing while I respect hi for not moderating his views, I also totally disagree with most of his views, at least on the economy. But I will say, Ican at least show him respect, as he isn't a slimy opputunist politician like Clinton.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Bull shit, my friend.

36% of Americans view the word "socialism" positively. When you add in the fact that Bernie isn't actually a socialist, he's a social democrat with views that a lot of Americans, and probably a majority of self-described liberals, plus all progressives, could get behind, it's not hard to believe that he'd win against a woman who ran her company into the fucking ground and flat-out sounds stupid whenever she talks, and a papist who wears sweater vests and whose name means anal sex froth.

Also, guessing that the liberals and progressive are the 36% of americans you cite in the poll viewing socialism favorably. I doubt that adds much beyond the 36% and given hat you've turned off all moderates and likely energized the republican base even more well that doesn't add up to electoral victory. That said, I will admit, I would have a hard time voting for fiorina, she'd win my state anyway, but even if it were a contested state I still don't know if I could actually vote for her, though, damn a failed ceo vs a socialist ehh horible choice either way.

She's a failed CEO, a racist, and sounds stupid as fuck when she talks. She wouldn't win.

If people took more than a fleeting glance at Bernie's policies and views they'd be like "hey, doesn't sound so bad."

[Prussia-Steinbach]

As an American I have and always will call the nordic system socialist. I have read the term social democracy before, but basically just interpret it as socialism.

You are literally admitting you don't give a fuck, not only what a word actually means, but what people even call themselves. The Nordic countries are in no way, shape, or form, socialist.

[Sciongrad]

I'm a Sanders supporter and a political science major and I can tell you Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.

I doubt most people care about the distinction, no offense. I mean, doing a quick google search brings up this page, which frankly looks to me like it is basically saying socialism=communism. In that sense ok, I'll grant that sanders isn't that far to the left, he isn't calling for government control of the means of production or anything (which is what communism in practice does). Still, essentially, it appears, that in america we call, social democracy socialism and real socialism is called communism.

There is an explicit distinction between socialism and social democracy. They're fundamentally different. The ultimate goal of democratic socialism is to replace capitalism through democratic means while social democracy actually preserves capitalism. For example, Scandinavian countries are very, very capitalist, but many of their policies are grounded in social democracy. Sanders is not advocating tearing down capitalism, and therefore, regardless of whether you care to acknowledge the distinction, is not a socialist.

[Llamalandia]

You'd be surprised, I believe if I'm not too much mistaken hiliary got a decent bump in the polls during the primary gainst obama by turning on the tears and "showing real emotion".

To my knowledge, that's a flagrant mistruth. Even by looking up "Hillary Clinton crying" I got essentially no results, and certainly none that suggest crying somehow boosted her standing among democrats. Frankly, I think you're trying to defend the potential of a Fiorina candidacy (which has no actual potential) to justify your vast underestimation of Sanders' chances by bring up nonsense like "crying wins votes" and "women obviously are more politically viable than men."

Well, here's the event I was referring to. I guess she didn't technically crying but as the article states she had tears welling up. It was all clearly calculated. I'll try and dig up a story showing a correlate bump in the polls. I mean, ultimately it wasn't enough to save her campaign but still it shows the potential power of crying when used strategically and appropriately, ie. not how John Boehner deploys it.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clintons-emotional-moment-87141

[Llamalandia]

As an American I have and always will call the nordic system socialist. I have read the term social democracy before, but basically just interpret it as socialism.

You are literally admitting you don't give a fuck, not only what a word actually means, but what people even call themselves. The Nordic countries are in no way, shape, or form, socialist.

Ok, but then clearly neither does Bernie Sanders. I mean, he's the one calling himself that to begin with. Really though, yeah, sometimes nuance isn't really necessary. He calls himself a socialist, most other americans view him and label him as such and frankly socialists, or people who call themselves socialist don't win national elections. Hell, obama couldn't even get a public option through when he had both houses of congress and a supermajority in the senate.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You are literally admitting you don't give a fuck, not only what a word actually means, but what people even call themselves. The Nordic countries are in no way, shape, or form, socialist.

Ok, but then clearly neither does Bernie Sanders. I mean, he's the one calling himself that to begin with. Really though, yeah, sometimes nuance isn't really necessary. He calls himself a socialist, most other americans view him and label him as such and frankly socialists, or people who call themselves socialist don't win national elections. Hell, obama couldn't even get a public option through when he had both houses of congress and a supermajority in the senate.

Already explained why Bernie calls himself that.

And the misinformation of the American public doesn't change what something is and always has been.

[Llamalandia]

I doubt most people care about the distinction, no offense. I mean, doing a quick google search brings up this page, which frankly looks to me like it is basically saying socialism=communism. In that sense ok, I'll grant that sanders isn't that far to the left, he isn't calling for government control of the means of production or anything (which is what communism in practice does). Still, essentially, it appears, that in america we call, social democracy socialism and real socialism is called communism.

There is an explicit distinction between socialism and social democracy. They're fundamentally different. The ultimate goal of democratic socialism is to replace capitalism through democratic means while social democracy actually preserves capitalism. For example, Scandinavian countries are very, very capitalist, but many of their policies are grounded in social democracy. Sanders is not advocating tearing down capitalism, and therefore, regardless of whether you care to acknowledge the distinction, is not a socialist.

I don't think Sanders is a huge fan of capitalism.

But I guess now I am a little confused what is the difference between social democracy and say libertarianism then?

[Geilinor]

I think I'll leave it to Sanders true supporters to defend his socialist street cred.

People who know political theory beyond "conservative vs. liberal" in the American terms can tell you he's not an actual socialist.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=socialism+definition

I thought Sanders says he's a democratic socialist who admires the Nordic model.

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist[4][5][6][7] who favors the creation of employee-owned cooperative enterprises[8][9] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[10][11][12]

He only supports social democracy when he has to compromise with capitalists, but he'd go for socialism if he could.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There is an explicit distinction between socialism and social democracy. They're fundamentally different. The ultimate goal of democratic socialism is to replace capitalism through democratic means while social democracy actually preserves capitalism. For example, Scandinavian countries are very, very capitalist, but many of their policies are grounded in social democracy. Sanders is not advocating tearing down capitalism, and therefore, regardless of whether you care to acknowledge the distinction, is not a socialist.

I don't think Sanders is a huge fan of capitalism.

But I guess now I am a little confused what is the difference between social democracy and say libertarianism then?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=right-wing+libertarianism

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+democracy

Seriously, learn to do a little fucking research. American right-wing libertarianism (more appropriately called minarchism or something of the sort) is at least economically not even close to social democracy.

[Aalmark]

As an American I have and always will call the nordic system socialist. I have read the term social democracy before, but basically just interpret it as socialism.

You are literally admitting you don't give a fuck, not only what a word actually means, but what people even call themselves. The Nordic countries are in no way, shape, or form, socialist.

Correct. They're highly capitalistic, which may explain their success(alongside their fierce protestant work ethic).

Now, Sanders calls himself a socialist as large government, coupled with progressive policies, is viewed as socialist in this country. Now, it's a bit juvenille to shit on those who think socialism is "left wing politics." After all, few rip on the Aussies for believing that liberalism=right wing conservatism, or that Latin Americans believe that christian democracy=left wing social democracy+Jesus." My point is, many millennials and college folk aren't hostile towards the word socialist. In 2010, 36% of Americans supported socialism. From my point of view, this means that by calling himself a socialist, Sanders will accumulate a fairly large base.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

People who know political theory beyond "conservative vs. liberal" in the American terms can tell you he's not an actual socialist.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=socialism+definition

I thought Sanders says he's a democratic socialist who admires the Nordic model.

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist[4][5][6][7] who favors the creation of employee-owned cooperative enterprises[8][9] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[10][11][12]

He only supports social democracy when he has to compromise with capitalists, but he'd go for socialism if he could.

Thank you, Geil, you're right.

Geilinor, everybody, speaking truth so blunt you can smoke it.

[Llamalandia]

Ok, but then clearly neither does Bernie Sanders. I mean, he's the one calling himself that to begin with. Really though, yeah, sometimes nuance isn't really necessary. He calls himself a socialist, most other americans view him and label him as such and frankly socialists, or people who call themselves socialist don't win national elections. Hell, obama couldn't even get a public option through when he had both houses of congress and a supermajority in the senate.

Already explained why Bernie calls himself that.

And the misinformation of the American public doesn't change what something is and always has been.

Ok. But misinformation is a huge part of the political process. I mean like it or not, but rush limbaugh or donald trump claiming for instance that obama wasn't born in the USA doesn't make it true, but it makes enough people believe it to have an impact on voters. In the Obama example not enough to change the outcome, but socialism is viewed so negatively here that it pretty much gurantees Sanders will never be elected president.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You are literally admitting you don't give a fuck, not only what a word actually means, but what people even call themselves. The Nordic countries are in no way, shape, or form, socialist.

Correct. They're highly capitalistic, which may explain their success(alongside their fierce protestant work ethic).

Now, Sanders calls himself a socialist as large government, coupled with progressive policies, is viewed as socialist in this country. Now, it's a bit juvenille to shit on those who think socialism is "left wing politics." After all, few rip on the Aussies for believing that liberalism=right wing conservatism, or that Latin Americans believe that christian democracy=left wing social democracy+Jesus." My point is, many millennials and college folk aren't hostile towards the word socialist. In 2010, 36% of Americans supported socialism. From my point of view, this means that by calling himself a socialist, Sanders will accumulate a fairly large base.

You're late.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Already explained why Bernie calls himself that.

And the misinformation of the American public doesn't change what something is and always has been.

Ok. But misinformation is a huge part of the political process. I mean like it or not, but rush limbaugh or donald trump claiming for instance that obama wasn't born in the USA doesn't make it true, but it makes enough people believe it to have an impact on voters. In the Obama example not enough to change the outcome, but socialism is viewed so negatively here that it pretty much gurantees Sanders will never be elected president.

Already fucking demonstrated McCarthyism isn't our national ideology anymore Llamalandia.

[Aalmark]

Correct. They're highly capitalistic, which may explain their success(alongside their fierce protestant work ethic).

Now, Sanders calls himself a socialist as large government, coupled with progressive policies, is viewed as socialist in this country. Now, it's a bit juvenille to shit on those who think socialism is "left wing politics." After all, few rip on the Aussies for believing that liberalism=right wing conservatism, or that Latin Americans believe that christian democracy=left wing social democracy+Jesus." My point is, many millennials and college folk aren't hostile towards the word socialist. In 2010, 36% of Americans supported socialism. From my point of view, this means that by calling himself a socialist, Sanders will accumulate a fairly large base.

You're late.

Bloody hell. My point still stands, I guess. I have reason to suspect that a large chunk of those socialists know little about the ideology, and just want more environmentalism, more welfare, less war, etc. They're everywhere in Seattle. They claim to be socialist, or even marxist, but vote Democratic, think Starbucks is a model corporation, etc etc.