Posted by Tina
the man who claims to be a socialist is fudging. He’s a died in the wool Marxist:
The Israeli press earlier this month broke the story that Sanders, who is Jewish, spent several months at an Israeli commune co-founded by a Soviet spy. The revelation is just now wending its way through the American media, where it’s been confirmed by none other than the New York Times, though the pro-Democrat paper predictably buried the story on its back pages.
As a college student in 1963, Sanders was a guest of the Hashomer Hatzair, a Marxist youth movement founded by communist Ya’akov Hazan, who called the Soviet Union a second homeland and eulogized Stalin as “the great leader and extolled commander. We lower our flag in grief in memory of the great revolutionary fighter (and) architect of socialist construction.”
Ignoring Stalin’s atrocities, Hazan oozed: “His huge historical achievements will guide generations in their march toward the reign of socialism and communism the world over.”
The Marxist movement Sanders joined pledged its allegiance to the Soviet Union and was described as “Stalinist” as late as 1969 — well after Sanders’ visit.
Sanders has acknowledged staying at a “kibbutz;” but there are many of them in Israel, and he and his campaign have refused to ID which one he attended. The Tel Aviv paper Haaretz dug up the records, revealing the exact camp — Sha’ar Ha’amakim — and noted that it was founded in 1935 during Stalin’s reign.
The Times reported that Sanders’ camp viewed the USSR as a model society worthy of adoption, and often flew the Red flag at its events — the same flag, notably, that Sanders would later hang in his office as mayor of Burlington, Vt., according to the New York Post.
As you know I believe the leadership of the Democrat Party bis riddled with people of the communist persuasion. Bernie is just a bit more honest than most.
(It’s going to kill Bernie lover Dewey when he discovers that one of the Kochs agrees with Bernie about corporate influence in government. My position is that a limited federal government would solve that problem…at least at the federal level)
Tina: “the man who claims to be a socialist is fudging. He’s a died in the wool Marxist”
I thought you didn’t believe there was a difference?
The association is unpleasant, but it doesn’t tell us much about Sanders’ beliefs today. I think Sanders has been fairly transparent about his policies; I also don’t think they’re at all realistic, at least at this point in time, so I won’t be voting for him. But I’ve never seen him show dishonesty about what he believes, and I don’t think this revelation shows any dishonesty either.
I have to laugh at this. Boogie man Politics.
The man has had the same platform his whoe career. One can look at his record, platforms and see who he is.
Look at every Politicians record. Look at their actions. Jeeze America had become a bunch of media propaganda and low info voters.
Vote for your candidate based on their record and facts.
Nice Try But no cigar.
FDR Policies are
Bernie aligns more along the FDR policies.
We had free college before. College is the new High School. If you want to compete in the world we need educated and skilled trade people. 300K for a degree on a high interest loan in a 3rd world country is not a good goal.
I will be voting for Bernie. I will only vote for Hilliary plugging my nose to stop the wall street fascists in the other party if I have to.
Let’s talk on the issues not the people.
Who is your candidate and what is their platform?
“I thought you didn’t believe there was a difference?”
Well that just shows how little attention you give to what you read here. The difference is measured in degrees of oppression. European democratic socialism isn’t as oppressive as Nazi style socialism which, without the war element, isn’t as oppressive as communism.. but they are all like a sled ride into hell.
None of the socialist forms of government are compatible with our republican form of government; all of them undermine it. All of them, whether fascism, communism or the new (phony) social democracy brand, undermine government based in individual freedom and capitalism. All of them embrace group at the expense of the individual. All of them blunt individual creativity, innovation and self-reliance weakening the whole. All of them seek to make government the authority in our lives. In a free nation groups form naturally and for various reasons including charity, education, sports, music and the arts. They don’t need to be forced. Socialism in it’s various forms forces people into groups or group identity, pits groups against each other, and picks winners and losers while sucking up all of the fruits of labor for redistribution. Government feeds off the neediness of the groups and the groups form dependency on government in a sliding dysfunctional alliance. Once full blown communism is realized the people become a single group completely oppressed by elites.
It’s dishonest at the most basic way to pretend to love America and be in favor of ideas formed by Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao Zedong or Che Guevara. Although Bernie admits to his socialism he won’t use the words communist or communism, no Democrat will, although, that is exactly what the end game has always been.
Welp, you found me out. Communism has definitely always been my end game. Underneath my clothing I wear a red bodysuit and I was born with a hammer and sickle. When I was 5 I led a violent proletariat uprising against my preschool teacher to make sure that every child had an exactly equal number of crayons, and my first erotic dream was about Mikhail Gorbachev.
(On a more serious note: The Nazis were no more socialist than China is a people’s republic. It’s historical ignorance to claim otherwise. You might want to look at a little poem by Martin Niemoller before saying such ridiculous and ahistorical things again.)
Why is it that Sanders always looks like he just stuck a finger into a light socket?
Re : “I think Sanders has been fairly transparent about his policies; I also don’t think they’re at all realistic, at least at this point in time…”
Now there is a revealing statement, not unexpected, but nonetheless revealing.
At the core of all political socialism is Marxism. One might paraphrase the above this way — Socialists think Marx was fairly transparent about his policies but don’t think they’re at all realistic, at least at this point in time.
I think Marx had some good ideas, but neither pure Marxism or pure capitalism can work. My views are similar to Martin Luther King, Jr. And George Orwell (who, like Bernie, identified as a democratic socialist). I don’t think democratic socialism is all that radical, but I still wouldn’t vote for a guy who openly identifies as such at this time because it would be impossible for him to get anything done.
“The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher
Bernie is not a democratic socialist, no matter what he claims. His plan for government to run healthcare (fascism) and provide (control) childcare and education through college won’t work. Obamacare has severely wounded the economy and jobs; Bernie’s plan would just about kill them.
Bernie’s tax plan won’t cover his social programs and is also a jobs killer.
Hillary is of the same mold in terms of social programs…she just personally lives by different rules and pretends she knows business because she hob nobs with the big corporations and bankers. Hers would definitely be a corrupt presidency.
All the compassion in the world will not play out in good results if plans are unsound. Socialists usually don’t have experience in what it takes to generate the funds they propose to gobble up for their pet projects. Redistribution consumes excessively; the covert greed blunts and slashes the engine required for sustainability. The hungry bureaucracy grows.
Leftists irrationally turn against the only thing that will generate funds, capitalism. In the process they also turn against those who create opportunity and jobs. In reality they murder any chances for advancement except by promotion in the government system. We end up with bloated government, shared misery among the people, a separate elitist class, and a massive pile of debt. (See Venezuela or Greece).
America was strong and prosperous for a long time. Our success resulted from limited government and strong capable people who created a wealthy class, yes, but also a broad and healthy middle class. Compassion was expressed individually and within communities and through the philanthropy of the wealthy. It isn’t a perfect system but it has been proven to be most successful system for the most people in all the worlds history. Liberty, backed up by the rule of law, offers the space for individuals to pursue their dreams and grow in strength. If we want a strong America we need a strong citizenry.
Chris you mean well but you are way off base in terms of what works best.
Tina: “Bernie is not a democratic socialist, no matter what he claims.”
I don’t understand. What views does Bernie hold that do not comport with democratic socialism?
“His plan for government to run healthcare (fascism)”
Calling government-run healthcare fascism is just as silly as calling Nazism a form of socialism. It’s not even a real argument; you’re just choosing a word that you know provokes a strong emotional response, and associating it with something you don’t like. Do you really think every country in Europe has a “fascist” healthcare system? Ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
“Obamacare has severely wounded the economy and jobs”
There is no evidence of that whatsoever.
This intelligent student understands what Bernie’s “free” education is really about.
College Student Drops 5-Word Verdict on Bernie’s ‘Free’ College Tuition Plan:
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/542832-542832/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics
Tina
you try to pin all these words on candidates ignoring their actual platform. Everything has to equate to some misused term from the past.
You do not have to like a candidate but you seem to prefer explaining away platforms in some babling misuse of terms.
Sanders has a platform. He has been the same throughout his career. FDR was actually a democratic socialist.
I like public libraries, the social security safety net ect. If you do not please stop cashing the checks.
The people are rising and it is not just about this election. Fact is Bernie said he would not run if someone else ran on the issues. No one else did. Fact is Hilliary takes from his platform daily. She will not stay there. She will sign the TPP. The Clintons are actually old school republicans. They moved the party to the right. Bill banned a reporter from the White House after she asked him about this.
Time for Modern Politics
According to your standards the actual founders of your Tea party would be a combination of Stalin and Hitler since their father started their wealth helping them. Fred was also a founding member of the John Birch Society. So add racist. Hum…..
Funny that rings truer than the whole Bernie Marxist deal.
Fascism? Like privatize away all public assets to foreign and domestic elite? Mixing gov and biz is not some kind of Utopia where the people will do well as debt slaves to the rich.
Flint Michigan is a Tea Party Win on display. They poisoned people and gave them the highest water bill in USA for doing so.
“What views does Bernie hold that do not comport with democratic socialism? ”
That’s the wrong question. The questions are, “To what degree do his views comport with fascism?” “To what degree do his ideals flow from Marx and Lenin?” “To what degree would his policies destroy the economy and jobs?”
“Calling government-run healthcare fascism is just as silly as calling Nazism a form of socialism.”
Oh please. Fascism is defined in part by government “control” (not ownership, that’s communism) of industry. The government has already intruded itself excessively in the banking, energy, food production, manufacturing, education, and healthcare industries. Bernie’s policies would represent the last nails in the coffin.
Nazism was a socialist system ( National Socialist German Workers’ Party) with conquering the world and destroying the Jews thrown in for good measure. Resentment of the Jews was based on resentment and paranoia about their success in business. Covetousness and hatred were the emotions Hitler relied on to stir up the people…just as it has been with the occupy movement in America today.
“…you’re just choosing a word that you know provokes a strong emotional response, and associating it with something you don’t like.”
You’ve got that upside down, Chris. You are ignoring the simple facts (definition) of fascism and reality because of your emotional response to Jews being shoved into ovens. Fascism, without the war element, is still fascism. It represents the government control over every aspect of our lives and that ain’t freedom! It is an affront to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It represents immoral covetousness. Taking what has not been earned and doesn’t belong to you from your neighbors is okay as long as we do it through government.
” Do you really think every country in Europe has a “fascist” healthcare system? ”
Absolutely!
In February of 2014, Economic21.org posted three ways Obamacare impacts the economy and jobs:
Me: ““What views does Bernie hold that do not comport with democratic socialism? ”
Chris: “That’s the wrong question.”
Well, it’s the question I asked, so I don’t see how it can be wrong, unless you simply mean it’s a question you don’t want to answer. You said Bernie is not a democratic socialist; I’d like to know why you believe that.
“Oh please. Fascism is defined in part by government “control” (not ownership, that’s communism) of industry.”
Yes, “in part” being the operative word there. But fascism is a much broader term than that, and government control of one thing does not necessarily = fascism. By your logic, anyone who supports public education is a fascist.
“Nazism was a socialist system ( National Socialist German Workers’ Party)”
That was their name, but that does not make them socialists, anymore than China is a “people’s republic” just because they say they are. Actual socialists were the first ones rounded up in Nazi Germany; this is well documented. “National socialism” and “socialism” are two very different things.
“Resentment of the Jews was based on resentment and paranoia about their success in business.”
I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea from. Jews in Germany before and during the Nazis’ rise were very poor, and though there were Jewish-owned businesses they were not at all a successful group in Germany, which had long been an anti-Semitic country. From Wikipedia:
“The Jews were blamed for things such as robbing the German people of their hard work while themselves avoiding physical labour.”
This sounds much more similar to things said by racists against immigrants, not anything the Occupy movement has said about the rich.
Modern anti-Semitism does often invoke the stereotype of the wealthy, powerful Jew, but I don’t believe that was a stereotype at the time of Nazi Germany, when Jews were more likely to be poor.
“You’ve got that upside down, Chris. You are ignoring the simple facts (definition) of fascism”
No, you’re focusing on a very narrow part of that definition in order to conflate fascism with socialism, when they are quite distinct and typically enemies of each other. Here’s the first thing that comes up when you Google “fascism:”
“an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.”
Socialism generally is not considered right-wing.
Me: “Do you really think every country in Europe has a “fascist” healthcare system? ”
You: “Absolutely!”
OK. You’re obviously wrong, but at least you’re consistent.
– See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2016/02/19/bernies-marxist-roots/#comment-66156
Democratic socialism: a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production.
“Social ownership of the means of production” is a deceptive way to say you favor absolute government control. Lefties use it because they know private property rights are still valued (and in the way). Chipping away at our freedom and rights is a pathway but the ultimate goal is still an absolute form based on Marx. Marxist theory seeks the elimination of private property and control of the economic means of production. This is what Bernie wants. He is a Marxist seeking a classless Utopian vision.
“government control of one thing does not necessarily = fascism. By your logic, anyone who supports public education is a fascist.”
When education becomes little more than a leftist ideology factory, focused on activism and social engineering and dedicated to thought control it is fascist. We are fast approaching that state across much of America.
“Jews in Germany before and during the Nazis’ rise were very poor, and though there were Jewish-owned businesses they were not at all a successful group in Germany…”
How about we try the horses mouth? The linked page begins with a letter written by Hitler to Herr Gemlich in which he expresses his thoughts on the Jews:
Also scroll down on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany“>this Wikipedia page to “The Weimar years, 1919–33” -“by 1914, the Jews were well represented among the wealthy, including 24 percent of the richest men in Prussia, and eight percent of the university students. … Jewish intellectuals and creative professionals were among the leading figures in many areas of Weimar culture. German university faculties became universally open to Jewish scholars in 1918. Leading Jewish intellectuals on university faculties included physicist Albert Einstein; sociologists Karl Mannheim, Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse; philosophers Ernst Cassirer and Edmund Husserl; political theorists Arthur Rosenberg and Gustav Meyer; and many others. Seventeen German citizens were awarded Nobel prizes during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), five of whom were Jewish scientists.”
The rise of the Nazi’s followed this period, as did the plunder of their wealth:
Vosizneias.com:
Chris how much do you value freedom and private property rights?
I ask because I realize you are too young to get how much freedom we’ve lost during the long march to “democratic socialism.” You are comfortable with our nation being “a little bit socialist” because in your life it’s always been that way. At the same time I doubt if you’ve considered very deeply what makes liberty and property rights important and valuable.
The discussion I’m attempting to have with you would compare liberty and capitalism to socialism and government control in whatever form you care to consider. It matters very little which brand you talk about they ALL are an affront to the ideals of our nations founding. They ALL undermine our liberties and private property rights. They all blunt creativity and innovation. They all become oppressive. They also undermine personal responsibility. Government control through redistribution gives some things for free by taking from others…those who get free stuff don;t have to be responsible.
I’m not wrong about Bernie and I’m not wrong about socialism being detrimental to the overall strength, health, well-being and prosperousness of the people.
“In February, CBO released a report that projected Obamacare will reduce U.S. employment by 2 million full-time workers by 2017. This number is expected to increase 2.5 million by 2024. Supporters of the law touted this decrease as beneficial but, as Charles Blahous pointed out on Economics21, this is terrible news for the economy. ..”
As of January 2016, there were about 158,335,000 Americans in the labor force. 2 million is less than a percent of that number. I don’t see how less than 1% of the labor force voluntarily choosing not to work, because they were previously only working to get health insurance, could be “terrible news for the economy.” If it were a larger percentage, sure.
“That’s not good news for the economy. It confirms the notion that America is turning into a nation of part time workers with less money to spend.”
Actually, since the ACA passed full-time jobs have grown faster than part-time jobs, and the ratio of part-time to full-time jobs has actually shrunk. So the notion that the ACA is turning America into a nation of part time workers doesn’t hold up.
http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-jobs-created-after-recession-afshar-yv–20151121-story.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/11/06/jobs-report-full-time-employment-now-above-where-it-was-before-the-recession/
“In addition, small businesses have been particularly hard hit. According to the American Action Forum, some 350,000 small business jobs have been lost and take-home pay for those still working has been reduced by more than $22.6 billion as a result of Obamacare.””
I would like to see some hard evidence of this, not just the claims of an advocacy group.
The resources from 2013 are out of date. Plenty has changed since then. Surveys about what CEOs said they would do have mostly turned out to be wrong; business owners always react with similar rhetoric whenever a new employee protection or benefit is passed, and they rarely follow through on the rhetoric. I do agree more should be done for those who are right on the line where they can afford neither insurance nor subsidies; my dad and stepmom are on that line. But they don’t want the law scrapped, they want it improved so that they too can enjoy the benefits they’ve seen others gain from it. And yes, 16 million newly insured is a huge benefit.
The economy under Obama has been abysmal for seven years, Chris. Whatever improvement there’s been of late, this is still anything but a robust economy. Average growth at 2% is not robust. and the jobs situation is not all that great either.
Jan 1, 2016 Forbes:
And all is not well in Obamacareland
Americans for Tax Reform, “The federal government has failed to properly monitor enrollee eligibility for Obamacare, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). As a result, the government has made billions of dollars in Obamacare subsidy payments to individuals that may have been committing fraud.”
health policy and market:
natural news:
A 2014 article finds that doctors are not happy. It hasn’t gotten better in two years either.
Happy talk won’t fix the problems in this law.