US Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ironically I think Bloomberg may have the best chance of beating Trump.

Sanders is popular among Democrats, but I think Trump would destroy him because of his socialism. Socialism is still a swear word in the USA.
 
BBSA said:
Interesting:

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Why do you call him a democratic socialism if he does not fit the definition?
Click to expand...
He's communist, but that is anathema in USA so made up a nice other name for it.
 
Last edited:
BBSA said:
Interesting:

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Why do you call him a democratic socialism if he does not fit the definition?
Click to expand...

Since his praise of the Nordic model indicated focus on social democracy as opposed to views involving social ownership, it has been argued that the term democratic socialism has become a misnomer for social democracy in American politics. Nonetheless, Sanders has explicitly advocated for some form of public ownership as well as workplace democracy, an expansion of worker cooperatives and the democratisation of the economy. Sanders' proposed legislation include worker-owned business, the Workplace Democracy Act, employee ownership as alternative to corporations and a package to encourage employee-owned companies. Called a "decent, honest New Dealer", Sanders associates Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society as part of the democratic socialist tradition and claimed the New Deal's legacy to "take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion".
Click to expand...
 
Chris_the_Brit said:
He doesn't have to own a house - he could rent while in DC.

Betting Update (for anyone betting): Hedged my bet on Biden to win SC with Bernie to win SC. Lost all confidence in Biden to win anything, Bernie likely to get momentum from his likely win in Nevada this weekend. No-one seems to be enthusiastic about Biden. I thought his African-American support would hold up, but even that seems to be cratering.
Click to expand...
The odds must've seen a big shift for you to be able to hedge on that market. What odds did you get?
 
Speedster said:
He's communist, but that is anathema in USA so made up a nice other name for it.
Click to expand...

Hey mr neutral, good to see another neutral comment from you. However he isnt a communist, no mater how hard you try and say its so.
 
cerebus said:
In any case it's a total strawman argument. Bernie's a commie so it's hypocritical for him to have money. Except he isn't a commie, he's a democratic socialist and Bloomberg is just trying to dogpile him with lazy critiques.
Click to expand...

Socialist orientated politicians are supposed to (but rarely do) live like the 'common man'. Having 3 houses is definitely in the upper echelons of USA wealth. I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie is part of the 1% he so rallies against. Remember Bernie wants to 'get rid of billionaires'
 
Chris_the_Brit said:
Socialist orientated politicians are supposed to (but rarely do) live like the 'common man'. Having 3 houses is definitely in the upper echelons of USA wealth. I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie is part of the 1% he so rallies against. Remember Bernie wants to 'get rid of billionaires'
Click to expand...

Again, a strawman. If Bernie Sanders had said "nobody should be a millionaire", "nobody should be able to accrue wealth", or anything like that, then sure he would be hypocritical. But he's never suggested that. In fact his wealth puts him in the lower tier of US Senators, and a lifetime of work only brought him up to $200k until he published his book and built up a couple mil - which is nice but still not a great amount of wealth.

He's not even trying to away the wealth of billionaires to the point that they stop being billionaires. His wealth tax for instance would cost Bill Gates around $7bil of his $100bil - a lot to be sure, but still leaving him with more money than any human could spend.
 
cerebus said:
In any case it's a total strawman argument. Bernie's a commie so it's hypocritical for him to have money. Except he isn't a commie, he's a democratic socialist and Bloomberg is just trying to dogpile him with lazy critiques.
Click to expand...
It is hypocritical for him to have money since he advocates for the state to take money from rich people. Why doesn't he show that he actually believes the B.S he sprouts by starting with himself?

Orwell nailed modern progressive/communist/labour/"democratic socialist" people completely. They are not pro poor insofar as they are anti-rich. It is why they would outright reject pro-poor things like school and healthcare vouchers because those things are pro-poor without being anti-rich. Something like flat income taxes are also like this.

And interestingly, if you want to see the real reason why people like Sanders will never do that well, it is because people in the US are actually quite wealthy compared to other countries, across almost all the brackets.

FT_17.05.22_EuropeMiddleIncome.png

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...estern-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

And the lower income group is actually on the decrease:
https://www.cato.org/blog/middle-class-shrinking-households-become-richer

edit: updated the link
 
cerebus said:
Again, a strawman. If Bernie Sanders had said "nobody should be a millionaire", "nobody should be able to accrue wealth", or anything like that, then sure he would be hypocritical. But he's never suggested that. In fact his wealth puts him in the lower tier of US Senators, and a lifetime of work only brought him up to $200k until he published his book and built up a couple mil - which is nice but still not a great amount of wealth.

He's not even trying to away the wealth of billionaires to the point that they stop being billionaires. His wealth tax for instance would cost Bill Gates around $7bil of his $100bil - a lot to be sure, but still leaving him with more money than any human could spend.
Click to expand...

Bernie rallies against the 'capitalist class' which is basically a nudge and a wink to anybody who is wealthy (again, the irony).
 
cerebus said:
Where?
Click to expand...

1. Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. What does that mean?
Democratic socialism has become a powerful force in American political life, but its definition is up for debate. Generally, it falls somewhere between communism and social democracy, which is common in Europe.

Strictly speaking, democratic socialists do not support capitalism, meaning they want workers to control the means of production. Unlike communists, democratic socialists also believe that socialism should be achieved democratically.
Click to expand...

www.nytimes.com

Bernie Sanders: Who He Is and What He Stands For (Published 2020)

The independent senator from Vermont is reprising his 2016 campaign, championing economic equality.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
cerebus said:
Again, a strawman. If Bernie Sanders had said "nobody should be a millionaire", "nobody should be able to accrue wealth", or anything like that, then sure he would be hypocritical. But he's never suggested that. In fact his wealth puts him in the lower tier of US Senators, and a lifetime of work only brought him up to $200k until he published his book and built up a couple mil - which is nice but still not a great amount of wealth.

He's not even trying to away the wealth of billionaires to the point that they stop being billionaires. His wealth tax for instance would cost Bill Gates around $7bil of his $100bil - a lot to be sure, but still leaving him with more money than any human could spend.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why not tax it at 100% -$2m? $2m is still more than enough for anyone to live very comfortably for their whole lives?

This is the problem with your socialism. You think that you can bring heaven to earth, thus there is no cost too great to violate. What if the government actually needs Bill Gates to cough up $99bn? Well it is still heaven on earth you are comparing it to, so again, you can morally do it.

What if it is his first born child? Well gee, it is one person vs the literal socialist paradise!! I mean what caring person would value the life of one innocent person over the benefit of society?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X