Bernie Sanders to run!!!

Ralphy1 said:
Think linc!
Click to expand...

Ralphy, Lincoln Chafee, coming from the inconsequential very blue state of Rhode Island isn't a very good choice either, although his former status as a Republican would help the ticket from the right. His WASPier than the G.H.W.Bush pedigree certainly won't help project a populist image.
 

Josiah said:
Bernie is not a logical choice for VP. Being right on the issues is last on the list of VP qualifications. Sherrod Brown from the important swing state of Ohio would be a better choice.
Click to expand...


Absolutely!! In fact I wish Brown would take a shot at the #1 position.. But you are right.. He is very popular in Ohio, and that being a swing state would help Hillary.
 
You have ruled him out without hearing him, and he is more to the left than any of these senior citizens chirping their progressive agendas...Listen to Linc!
 

I must admit... I know nothing about "Linc".. Is he a crackpot?

I'd have to hear him speak... may be a bit too "Republican" for my taste..

Bye the way... Is he running... or not?
 
Our guy is running if he can get financial support, he only has five grand to date. And you ain't seen liberal until you hear him, liberal but not a socialist like old Bernie, and not half a republican like old Hillary...
 
Ralphy1 said:
Our guy is running if he can get financial support, he only has five grand to date. And you ain't seen liberal until you hear him, liberal but not a socialist like old Bernie, and not half a republican like old Hillary...
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long before the "socialist" label was puked out..

Have you LISTENED to what Bernie has to say?

and what is wrong with Socialist?
 
QuickSilver said:
Again.... what is wrong with socialism, with or without a large or small s. Please don't tell me you are one of those who does not understand the difference between Socialism and Communism..
Click to expand...

There are many who don't understand the difference. Socialism is a dirty word in the US for some reason, even with so many socialist programmes.
 
Too much of a temptation for many not to do anything and just live off of the government more than some do in this country now...
 
Socialism is social controls while Communism is social controls plus political control. Both are complete economic disasters.

Notice that communist China was a starving country till they decided to allow much looser and private businesses and industries to operate. Now at least some folks are able to make a living, to leave China to live elsewhere, to go back to China if they please. They are living much more like free people now that the Communism part of their government has allowed personal freedom to exist once again.

The Chinese people are real good folks and in spite of the Communist government they try to be good folks.
 
Ralphy1 said:
Too much of a temptation for many not to do anything and just live off of the government more than some do in this country now...
Click to expand...

That's not true at all.. Under Socialism... people have to WORK in order to share some of the profits.. Profits are not allowed to be taken and hidden overseas. The people doing the work are compensated according to the work they have done.. Money is not filtered up to the TOP only.



From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.
The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

Social safety nets as we have now... Medicare, Social Security, remain in place. Assistance to those unable to work due to disabilities remains..


But it's not surprising...

socialism-definition-1.jpg



 
Communes employing that lack of structure were tried in this country in the 1800s and failed when some wouldn't pull their wait. Also, I believe that the hippie communes of the 60's failed because too many people laid around and got stoned...:D
 
Ralphy1 said:
Communes employing that lack of structure were tried in this country in the 1800s and failed when some wouldn't pull their wait. Also, I believe that the hippie communes of the 60's failed because too many people laid around and got stoned...:D
Click to expand...


So I see you are a proud member of the 70% of Americans who have ZERO clue about what socialism is.
 
Are you equating communes with socialism? If so... then you are clueless, because communes are more in the line of communism... Hence the word Ralphy

COMMUNism
 
No, communes were not in line with communism and probably failed sooner than they would have if they had been...
 
Whatever Ralphy.... My job is to not change your mind or even to educate you... Believe what you wish...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top