There is no formal procedure for violating the principle of moral hazard. The Chairman of the Fed and the Secrerary of the Treasury were attempting to avoid a massive economic collapse following the failure of financial services companies.

The banking system was nationalized to thaw a credit freeze.

None of that was socialism for the rich. — frank

There were many conservatives -- including Ann Coulter -- speaking out AGAINST a bailout, who believe exactly that: that it was indeed "socialism" (from their perspective this means essentially "giving taxpayer dollars to") for the financial industry, which triggered the collapse.

So if you don't like that definition of socialism, fine. Then in that case using a comparable amount of taxpayer money to give people healthcare, or wipe out student debt, isn't "socialism"?

The bail-outs were as much "socialism" as anything else. Why a person like you defends taxpayer money (yours and mine) going to tax cuts that mainly favor corporate America and bailouts for Goldman Sachs, white at the same time coming down hard on Bernie Sanders for wanting to spend money on programs that empirically help the working and middle class, is perplexing to me. Do you not count yourself as working or middle class? If you do, you must see what's going on in this country. You're living it.

That's not an argument.

But call Bernie what you want. I’ve already stated his policies reek of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century. — NOS4A2

What high tax reforms of the last 50 years, exactly? Since 1970 the trend has been exactly the opposite. The neoliberal era has not favored high taxes, ESPECIALLY not on corporations. So your sense history is strange indeed.

Why would we need another New Deal if the first one was so great? The government’s power was greatly increased and that has not subsided. — NOS4A2

It has. Since the 1970s, as a matter of fact. Remember that the 1960s was a very threatening time for those in favor of maintaining the status quo, and there was a reaction. That reaction -- neoliberalism -- is the era we've been living in since. It's only now starting to crumble. To argue neoliberal policies are anything like the New Deal is absurd. Since Reagan, the mantra has been "getting big government out of our lives," which is a popular thing to say. But the state has remained a large corporate welfare one. That's certainly big government, but not for the people -- it's rigged for big business and the wealthiest Americans, in every sense.

And while it's true we still have social security, look at the proposals of the Republicans like McConnell and even the latest Trump spending budget proposals. They want to cut social security (and medicare). They're coming for "entitlements" to pay for their big tax cuts to the wealthy.

They're giving it all to themselves, right before our eyes, and yet you argue in favor of them. I can't honestly go on talking with you without acknowledging this feeling of perplexity. Do you not count yourself among the working and middle class? You're part of the wealthiest 1%? Do you not believe in classes or the huge gap between the richest people and the vast majority of Americans (including yourself)?

Do you acknowledge the possibility that misinformation and years of propaganda has maybe had an influence on why you believe and say the things you do? What are your news sources? From where do you get your facts and figures -- if any? Who are you listening to? I'm genuinely curious. You don't seem like a crazy person ranting things online.

Has Cold War era thinking had an effect on you? I suspect you're probably in your 50s or 60s, am I wrong?

Not to digress into psychological or personal factors (which is especially difficult online), but it's relevant in this case. Let me remind you, too: I'm not a liberal and not a democrat and not a socialist. That'll be hard for you to believe, I think, but it's true. So things I say are not from a "blue team always right" point of view at all, as you may be used to. Try to look passed that and really listen. Make the attempt to understand my position at least, and at that point we can have a meaningful discussion about whether my position is correct or not. If you can't at mininum get that right, we're just talking different languages.

If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? — NOS4A2

And I would ask : why are you so hung up on labels? Look at the policies and debate those -- the rest is meaningless, including whether he's a socialist. That said, he's a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. That's not socialism in your sense. It's to differentiate from exactly that sense, of "the state owning the means of production." Because the word "socialist" is in there does not make it socialism in your sense. There were "National Socialists" too, remember. Who cares?

Does medicare for all, free college and universities, etc., make sense or not? Let's assume we can pay for them and that it gets through congress and survives challenges at the Supreme Court -- do they make sense? I would argue yes, they do. I think they'd be very good for working and middle class people like myself, like you, and like everyone we know. We've seen the results of the neoliberal period, and it's simply not working or sustainable anymore.

Alright before we begin this discussion I'll just let you know that I would really never vote for Bernie. I'm just interested in the actual contents of his beliefs. From what I know - off the top of my head - he's said favorable things about Castro and the USSR, and he favored nationalizing.... some industry in the 1980s and doing so in a manner without even compensating the leaders of those industries.

Again, not looking for a debate here just an honest picture of what Bernie believes. — BitconnectCarlos

In that case, there's plenty of information available to you. If you're genuinely interested. Saying "favorable things" abut Cuba and the USSR is untrue. He's said favorable things about programs that help the working class and poor -- literacy programs, etc. That's not saying favorable things about the standard American ideas about the governments and leaders of either country.

Bernie essentially wants to nationalize healthcare, yes. That's no secret. There's plenty of debate to be had there.

Social Democrats are totally different from Marxist-(Leninists). They don't want to stop capitalism. Their idea is only to milk it a bit more and have this "socialism-lite". And if you listen to Bernie, that is exactly what he's up to. — ssu

Basically, yes.

That was interesting. There is a lot in there I agree with. But they go much farther than I...I just want a more interested voter (not just interested in having their opinions agreed with). They want everyone to actually engage with their community. I am way too socially uncomfortable for that sort of behavior :grimace: But I can appreciate its usefulness and support those actions when I can. I can admit that I would definitely count as a "hobbyist" based on their description. — ZhouBoTong

And me as well. We're in the same boat, really. I don't go out giving talks or anything. But among friends, family, friends-of-friends, coworkers, and even sometimes strangers, I like having those conversations. Not to mention online. I would like to be more involved in an organization where I actually work with others in pursuit of political goals. The Sunrise Movement and other large, national organizations and movements is interesting and all of that, but I think I'd be more comfortable locally -- and that's kind of the point of the article anyway, in the sense that this is where everything starts.

But you're absolutely right: being interested, informed, and willing to have the conversations with other people in a rational way, are all necessary. Even THAT would be sufficient to change things, too, because in that case we'd be voting very differently. Unfortunately we're being indoctrinated in all kinds of ways, and having our consent "manufactured," to a large degree. How to overcome this is an interesting topic.

What do you make of Krugman's position vs. Wolff's? I'll link below, if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6J3ROV4IPc

Those policies actually fit the technical definition of social democracy (which is not a kind of socialism), not democratic socialism, or any kind of socialism. They have nothing to do with capital being owned by those who use it, they just provide a band-aid over the worst excesses of capitalism. — Pfhorrest

You're on to a much deeper issue, which is that even Bernie's policies don't go far enough. But since Bernie himself is considered so extreme, it's very hard to have that conversation. It's more worthwhile to fight for his policies. But when you say "band-aid," you're exactly right. That's what the New Deal, laws and regualtions of the 60s, etc., were really doing. They rearranged the rules, made the game less tilted, but continue to play the game nonetheless.

The real, long-term and overarching goal should be the destruction of capitalism altogether. I advocate for anarcho-syndicalism pro tem. Then I would argue in the space opened by Nietzsche regarding the distant future. But as you can see, we'd be getting into a more academic and philosophical discussion rather than a political one grounded in the real world of current affairs.

Still, your point is an important one and worth keeping in mind.

Bernie is an avowed socialist. Straight from the horse’s mouth. That was my only point. You don’t have to look at the countless other leaders and states who have claimed the same, but because there is always a trail of death and tyranny behind them should at least be cause for scepticism when someone once again picks up the mantle. I doubt your equivocations would occur if Bernie called himself a fascist, for instance. — NOS4A2

Let's at least be very clear: Bernie is an avowed "Democratic Socialist." It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but it happens to matter in this case. Why? Because Bernie, as anyone would expect, does not identify with the state owning the means of production or any Soviet-type government. He's not in favor of dictatorship or authoritarianism. What Bernie means is a label for New Deal style policies. That's all. Given that, any way you feel about socialism, its history and track record, is already moot -- why? Because that's not what Bernie is talking about. That's precisely why he adds the "democratic" part, to differentiate from Russian and Cuba and others.

That being said, your assessment of the history of socialism is itself a little strange. Of course there's been a trail of death and tyranny. But that's any form of government, ideology, religion, etc. That's capitalism too -- FAR more deadly than socialism. The countries who have professed to be capitalists are responsible for huge atrocities for centuries now. But doing a body count is a silly way to proceed anyway.

Lastly, I'm not "equivocating" anything. I'm saying Bernie should be judged based on his policies and proposals, almost all of which have majority support in this country. They're therefore not "radical" or socialist pipe dreams. They are what's done in many countries in the world. They're also richt in line with our own history: the FDR era, through Eisenhower and even Nixon. So getting caught up in a label is useless -- just look at the policies, and you'll see what Bernie means by "Democratic Socialism." Don't agree with the policies? Fine, then give a sensible argument for why they don't work. Waving your hand and saying "it's socialist"isn't an argument.

I think swinging the country in the direction of a new New Deal is a very smart choice and very much needed, after years of neoliberal policy -- the results we see all around us. If you really feel we're (the working and middle classes) better off now than we were in the 50s and 60s under New Deal policies, that's a debate worth having.

Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you.
— Xtrix

No use debating something who can't deal with the obvious. Sanders himself says he's socialist, there's no need for me or anyone here to define it. SO, not running away, moving on to something useful. — Wayfarer

No, running away. And rightfully so. Why? Because it's a very complicated issue and extremely hard to pin down -- and that's exactly my point.

So long as it's true that "God" or "socialism" or "liberal" or any other word you use is open to a large range of interpretation, and since in this domain (politics) it's important to be as clear and precise as we can be (because the stakes for the country and world are very large), we cannot just throw words around and say "Ah, you know what I mean - it's obvious." It isn't obvious. You and I have a vastly different concept of "socialism," to take an immediate example. It's therefore worth discussing what we're talking about when we use the word to see if statements about this "entity" is reasonable and accurate or not.

I hold the following: all that's meant by "Democratic Socialism" is New Deal-type policies with the following aims:: (1) creating a society that works better for working and middle class people -- the 80+% of us. (2) Creating a fairer distribution of wealth. (3) Guaranteeing free healthcare and education, both (and especially the former) being seen as a human right.

I do NOT interpret the word to mean Communism, or the State "owning the means of production." I consider it simply the above policies with said goals. Now it's questionable I (or we) should even call it "socialism", given socialism's long and negative history in this country. That's an interesting topic, but one we can't even have if by "socialism" you mean something radically different than what I mean. At that point we're talking passed one another.

Oh. Yea, that wasn't Wall St. asking for a bail out. It was the freaking chairman if the federal reserve and the secretary of the treasury. — frank

No, it was Wall Street. It was the financial institutions -- the same ones that put millions of dollars into Obama's campaign. They received a slap on the wrist from Obama, not surprisingly.

The Chairman of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary asking for a bail-out doesn't make sense. There may have been a debate about whether or not the government SHOULD intervene, and there was real debate about that, but that's a different discussion. It was the Fed and Treasury that needed bailing out.

Bernie Sanders is an avowed, self-declared, democratic socialist, and the meaning is as clear as day. Over and out. — Wayfarer

The meaning is as clear as day. OK, then define it for us all: what's "socialism"? And what's "Democratic socialism"?

Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you.

The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead.
— Xtrix

I spelled it out, and got a wall of blather in return. — Wayfarer

No, you didn't. You said he was a socialist (not true) and then that his policies are socialist (without defining what socialism is).

So again, I repeat:
1) Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. What does that mean and how is it different from "socialism"? Good question, and worth talking about.
2) His policies are popular and are similar to other countries around the world, like single-payer healthcare. To say this is "socialist" is essentially like saying high schools and libraries are socialist too. You agree with that or not? Trick question, since you haven't defined socialism.

The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%.
— NOS4A2

Corporate tax rates were above 45% from just after WW2 until Reagan. Even then they were around 35% until 3 years ago. And America had a stronger economy relative to the world in those days so a high corporate tax rate must be a good thing??

I actually think it is way more complicated than that (in fact, when corporate taxes were at 35%, the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was below 20%). So raising the corporate tax rate back to where it was 3 years ago (which was EFFECTIVELY the same as it is today) does not seem to be a big issue?? — ZhouBoTong

I think NOS4A2 doesn't care much about any of these details. He'll move on to the next Limbaugh talking point like "socialism always fails (even though the word is meaningless)", wonderful historical facts like "Charles I created the Post Office," or else put on his Nostradamus hat and foresee the collapse of the Chinese economy because they're too "mercantile."

I wouldn't put in much more effort.

Bernie's policies aren't socialism.
— Xtrix

But Bernie himself says he's socialist. — Wayfarer

No, he says he's a Democratic Socialist. But that means almost nothing outside the context of his proposals. HIs policies aren't socialist (according to our friend), since they're clearly in line with other countries like Canada, Britain, Germany, the Nordic countries, etc.

Free public health, free public higher education, and forgiveness of student debt, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations - those are his policies, and they are socialist. — Wayfarer

The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead.

It's true that those are Sanders' policies. It's also true that he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. Thus, all we really know is that, to Bernie Sanders, "democratic socialist" means exactly these policies. Fine, so let's look at the policies and ask if they make sense.

Turns out, they do. They're also popular. They'd be very good for the country. If you want to discuss the details about how it's paid for, great. But let's stop wasting time being hung up on this "socialism" nonsense -- because no one knows what the hell they're talking about. It's like the word "God." Seems like it has meaning, but in the end it's so amorphous as to be completely empty. It ends up being a bit of a Rorschach test, telling us more about the psychology of the person who sees "evil" or "good," etc. Most people who associate it only with failed states, Stalin, Mao, etc., probably grew up during the Cold War, for example.

He openly is calling for a political revolution in favour of the majority against corporatism. — Wayfarer

Yeah, so? That could make him a kind of Communist, Anarchist, Marxist, or someone without any label whatsoever who simply recognizes the state of affairs and what needs to be done.

Again, let's move beyond meaningless labeling. Who cares.

Regarding the debate last night:

I didn't think Sanders looked bad at all, despite everyone coming after him. I only wish he'd tighten up the "how are you gonna pay for it" stuff with some quick responses. Say Mexico will pay for it, anything. Who cares anyway...certainly not the right-wing hypocrites. They don't really care anyway, they just pretend to when it's a proposal that doesn't benefit the wealthiest .001%, which they all apparently believe themselves to be (or at least have been convinced giving everything away to these corporate masters is good for the economy).

By this time next week, Sanders will be the clear nominee. Maybe a couple of others will stick around, but it'll be essentially over. Mark my words. All of the attacks and the negative press only helps him.

US centrism is always so much fun.

It's an INTERNATIONAL conspiracy man! ALL the European and Asian universities are in on it too! Damn conspirational experts with their Internet and stuff coordinating all this and STILL nobody can find proof of the stuff I see, which if why I know climate change is a HOAX. The MSM are in on it too! Everywhere! There's not a newspaper in sight that doesn't peddle climate change fantasies. You need to read up on some real news on BREITBART.

They took our jobs!

They're going to take our guns!

Civil war! Semper fi! — Benkei

Exactly. It's pretty disheartening to know how effective "politicizing" something can be. If I were an Exxon executive, or a Koch brother, and my wealth and power was threatened by the findings of science, I would certainly (if I were greedy and shortsighted) spend a great sum of money on sowing doubt, spreading misinformation, and associating any mention of the phenomenon as a product of the "elites," the liberal universities, or just liberals in general. Tree-hugging hippies, etc.

It's been effective enough to convince a large minority in this country that nothing is happening or, if there is something happening, we can't do anything about it -- and there's always some reason or other why we can't do anything: it'll destroy the economy, the rest of the world pollutes too, it's too expensive, we're all doomed anyway, God promised Noah there wouldn't be another flood, etc.

True. Although it's equally true there "no need to be idiotic."

But when you make no effort to understand the words you're using, repeating conservative talk radio canards, repeatedly mischaracterizing what others are saying...yeah, I eventually lose interest, and respect.

The world is a complex place. "Socialism" has a long history, at least to the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. There have been many branches, some statist some anti-statist. There have been countries who claim to be socialist or communist to appeal to the people, there are countries that have equated both ideologies with evil. Propaganda abounds. But if you study history, you find that since the industrial revolution, most countries have had economies that work essentially for the powerful and "responsible" class of men, whatever they claim to be. Most economies are "mixed" in the sense of having a large degree of state intervention along with privatization and "free markets," etc.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, or even liberal or conservative. Try to look beyond these categories, as they're fairly devoid of meaning as well. "Socialism" is no exception.

If you want to discuss Sanders' policies seriously, fine. So far you've said nothing except parrot tired, long-refuted lines that I hear all the time when I put on Fox News. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's exactly what we're getting at here and here. Stop being one of these clowns. Otherwise, don't be surprised when you're (correctly) called pathetic.

Somebody needs to STFU. :shade: — 180 Proof

I agree.

It’s true that China has developed an economically-viable brand of Socialism, but it’s too totalitarian and mercantilist to last. — NOS4A2

God you're pathetic.

Love the Limbaugh talking points, though.

No, I do have a problem bringing those policies to the US. But mostly I have a problem with Bernie’s statist policies, which differ in many respect to the countries he holds as exemplars. The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. Denmark and Sweden don’t have government-mandated minimum wage; Bernie wants government-mandated minimum wage. His Green New Deal is the thing nightmares are made out of. — NOS4A2

The corporate tax rate was much higher in another socialist country I can think of...called the United States. We had a pretty good economy back then, too.

Denmark has much higher real wages than the US, whose real wages have stagnated since the 70s.

The rest can be ignored -- you're talking nonsense again and I'm tired of correcting you. I won't even bother to have you elaborate, lest you cite Wikipedia and the dictionary again or, worse, your own memory (Charles the 1st created the post office, after all.) :roll:

Summing up:

Bernie's policies aren't socialism.
You have no clue what socialism is.
His policies are both popular and logical.

While Trump has increased the average american's interest in politics (finding that silver lining where I can), it does not mean that people are willing to do serious policy research. Just that they are willing to spend some of their entertainment hours listening to people give their opinions on politics (all 24 hour new stations). — ZhouBoTong

There's a good Atlantic article about this under "political hobbyism." Very interesting. Very scary, too.

So I find it very weird when people say someone is un-electable due to their economic policies. Oh, people understand economics now do they?!? — ZhouBoTong

So very true. It's the same with listening to people go on about climate change. Why is it that just because in their free time they take a slight interest in politics (when they get home from work and not watching "Dancing With The Stars" or the NFL), and hear some talking point from their favorite opinion columnist, talk show host, comedian, or radio commentator, that they feel entitled to spout nonsense online (and in person)?

They would NEVER do this otherwise, in any other domain. You don't hear people claiming to know anything about the latest in physics, for example. Yet if it's been "politicized" and thus included in their daily diet of news consumption/addiction, then suddenly they feel confident in their sudden expertise.

What about a simple "I don't know," or "tell me more about that"? I think it's because, sadly, MOST of this repeating of an opinion that Rush Limbaugh formulated often passes as intelligent, and most people don't even know enough or follow things closely enough to know that it's complete nonsense. So these people get away with it, over and over, in their own social circles and social media bubbles, reinforcing what they believe and convinced that they have a lock on truth and knowledge -- when in reality, they're parroting propaganda.

This happens on the left as well, of course. But the hilarious part is that BOTH sides will accuse the other of this phenomenon -- and both are correct. Yet they can never see it in themselves or from their own "tribe." It's staggering. I think this is another reason to try and discourage people from labeling themselves "liberal" or "conservative," it turns politics into spectator sports, something Americans are all too comfortable with: sitting on the sofa or in a stadium, cheering on a team, and feeling like they're actually a part of any of it -- as the NFL goes makes millions of dollars off of them.

A little long winded. I digress.

Do you still contend that “Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states”?

I never even hinted at such proposition. — NOS4A2

You did, by linking Sanders' proposals with "socialism," and going on to say that "socialism" never works. So either Sanders' proposals are more in line with China and India, or else they're like Denmark and Sweden and thus NOT socialism.

Your entire worldview reeks of Cold War paranoia.

Dictionaries record usage, not how a word should be defined. — NOS4A2

I asked specifically for your own definition. You quoted the dictionary. So who's falling into the fallacy you cite?

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning.

it’s true, the word has little meaning anymore. — NOS4A2

It's interesting you say this, yet you use it in a negative sense in reference to Bernie Sanders' policies -- which aren't unlike Canada, Denmark, etc. Then you say these countries aren't socialist.

So Sanders' proposals are socialist, and socialism (although a meaningless term) "never works," you cite the dictionary and list a Wikipedia article on socialist states, including China (which has greater GDP growth than the US). So China's policies have failed?

You're just confused. Stop using "socialism," and look at the proposals on their now merits. Universal healthcare, free public college, student debt relief, doing something about climate change, etc. These aren't radical Communist ideas. Your dating yourself if you think so.

I always use the common definition: social control of the means of production. A socialist state is a state that explicitly seeks to achieve this end. Here’s a list of such states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states — NOS4A2

Good. So now you must realize the stupidity of your original statement? Unless, of course, China, Russia and India are failed states?

The Nordic system is not socialist. — NOS4A2

Ohh, I see. Great -- so then Bernie's policies aren't socialism either. Good to know. So you shouldn't have a problem bringing these clearly non-socialist countries' policies to the US.

What the f&& is a "climate denier" anyway? The climate does not make claims, how can you deny them? — Nobeernolife

A climate denier is someone, like you, who denies that the climate is changing at a rapid rate of change and caused not by variance but by human activity, mainly from burning fossil fuels, agricultural practices and deforestation.

Someone who talks so much about "propaganda" sure can't recognize the role it's played in his own "opinions" about climate change. What a shocker.

"The climate is always changing" is the current denialist talking point. Surprised you have busted that one out yet.

Again: it's worth educating yourself on this. Try NASA, NOAA, or any college or university science department here or anywhere else in the world. I'll link the first below. Or is NASA included in this propaganda and global conspiracy?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Name-calling is not an argument, and on Google you can find all sorts of things, including critics of the global warming talking points. — Nobeernolife

Yes, there's plenty of information on the Earth being flat too. I guess it's a wash, then. Great argument for remaining ignorant about science.

As I pointed out, even if the US did not exist, the rest of world would continue to consume fossil fuels. — Nobeernolife

That's not what you initially said. If that's what you meant, fine -- that's fair and it's worth discussing seriously. But it certainly didn't come off that way.

I already alluded to the fact that the US's involvement would have an impact on the rest of the world, as did others on this thread. We're currently the only civilized nation not in the Paris Accord, for example. That matters.

If we're a world leader -- as we clearly are -- and also a leader in emissions per capita and second in total, then we have a responsibility to do something. I can't speak for China, India, or other countries. I don't like what they do, obviously, but I'm an American citizen and so I write and talk especially about American environmental policies, because that's where I can have the most (and still far too little) effect.

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once.
— Xtrix
If you never said that, why are you arguing? The only reason I jumped in here was because of the hysterical claim that "civilization" would not survive another 4 years of Trump. — Nobeernolife

I didn't say that either. I'm arguing because of your stupid statements, which you continue to make, about comments I never made.

Four more years of Trump's environmental policies will exacerbate the climate crisis. There's no doubt about that. He's also a climate denier. A Democratic alternative, no matter who it is (assuming they at least acknowledge climate change as a real threat), is a better choice for this reason alone. That was the point. The fact that you take this to mean "Trump is responsible for climate change" or we "won't survive 4 more years of Trump" is pretty telling. It means that's what you want to hear. It's a straw man -- which is all you are informed enough to argue against. Which is to say, not at all.

Oh, it would certainly have an impact on policy.... i.e. China taking advantage of the US hobbling its economy, and African dictators gathering at the trough of "climate" subsidies for vague promises. It would NOT have an impact on the worlds climate. — Nobeernolife

Yawn. And you know this for a fact because you're a climatologist, or at least have educated yourself on this topic. :roll:

It would have a drastic impact on the climate if we enacted a plan to cut emissions by moving to renewables, taxing carbon, better regulating Big Oil, more efficient practices in agriculture, etc. To argue this would have no impact is, again, insanely ignorant.

You're out of your league on this topic, and embarrassing yourself. Cut your losses and stop. It's not even fair -- I have the science community on my side. It's easy to Google and inform yourself. I highly recommend it.

Or continue making embarrassing claims. Your call.

Aren't people voting for Bernie because of the direction they HOPE it puts the country on? It is about sending a message, not actually believing the USA will be just like Denmark in 3 years. — ZhouBoTong

Excellent point. I think you're exactly right: for millions of Americans, it's not the details. I don't think many people are all that informed. They voted for Obama because he was a charismatic guy, they voted for Trump because they liked a "tough guy" saying things they couldn't say and to piss off the "liberals," they voted for Bush because he was a guy they wanted to have a beer with, etc. If they like the person and they like what he or she says, then that's usually enough. I think Bernie does very well on both counts.

Bernie’s brand of socialism is more social democratic, though the terms are already so watered down and abused to be of any use. — NOS4A2

True, and yet you say:

One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history. — NOS4A2

So tell us: how are you defining "socialism"? And please inform us why Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states.

It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. — NOS4A2

Common, yes. Correct? Sure -- but only using your definition of socialism.

I'll be less nuanced: your claim that socialism has "always failed" is flat wrong, on any measure. Either acknowledge that or the only response you deserve is: "OK, boomer."

But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. As for post offices, they became tax-funded under Charles 1st, long before socialism was a fart in someone’s mind. Taxes have been a part of human life since time immemorial. — NOS4A2

To argue Bismark was socialist or not is completely irrelevant, considering you haven't provided a definition of "socialism" and have, in fact, made sweeping, ridiculous claims about it -- which already reveals your indoctrination and poor sense of history.

Speaking of poor sense of history: the "Post Office" was not created by Charles 1st. If you're referring to England's Royal Mail, which is far different in every aspect to the USPS, then you mean Henry VIII. Also, it wasn't "tax-funded" under Charles 1st. Far from it.

I know it's usually pretty easy to get away with ignorant statements in your own circle, but try to be more careful in this forum, OK?

I don’t doubt Bernie’s sense of justice, but being against wars and bigotry is easy. What I worry about is how he plans to implement his policies and the costs. — NOS4A2

Yes, you and millions of others. That's why it's worth putting in the effort to educate yourself about it, which you refuse to do.

HOW DOES BERNIE PAY FOR HIS PROPOSALS?

Common question. Here's the answer, in detail:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

Is his ideology too extreme? Bernie has a good answer to that which was recently asked at a Town Hall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYmlzB7AIWM

I'm not a socialist.Not even a democratic socialist. The US got its wealth through a system Bernie wants to destroy. He has no understanding of the economy at all. — fishfry

What wealth? You mean the wealth of the 1%? Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him.

I would grow out of this fear of "socialism" and try learning something about what Bernie's proposals really are and whether they make sense.

I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump.
— Xtrix

Bloomberg and Clinton are exactly why the public wants Trump and Bernie. You cling to the neoliberal consensus perhaps because you don't know how truly evil it's become. Didn't the Iraq war teach you anything? — fishfry

Given the context, it was very easy to see that I don't like either, but was demonstrating how "low" I would go just to get Trump out of office. How is that hard to understand?

As for "neoliberal consensus"...do you even know what that is? Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc.

So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism. I assume you're just confused, though, because the word "liberal" is in it.

I stand with Trump, warts and all. — fishfry

Great choice.

And Bernie? No no no no no. Unbelievable that an ignorant guy like that could be in charge of the country. — fishfry

Yeah, this coming from someone who voted for and continues to stand by Donald Trump?

Excuse me as I laugh myself out of this dialogue.

What Xtrix is saying is blatantly false. Trump is not responsible for climate change. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate. — frank

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once.

You really have some reading comprehension problems, don't you Frank?

Try to keep up, buddy.

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment.
— Xtrix

No, it is not. — Nobeernolife

Yes, it is.

US policy does not determine the world climate. — Nobeernolife

Yes, it does, and to a very large degree. Only China currently emits more CO2, for example.

If I assume that all the wild-eyed claims about global warming being solely caused by human burning of fossil fuels were true... — Nobeernolife

It's not "wild-eyed" claims, it's climatology. It's the entire scientific community. The claim is not that burning fossil fuels is the sole cause, either. Deforestation plays a significant role as well, among others.

Given how easy it is to educate yourself on this, your ignorance about it is striking -- yet not terribly surprising.

You could have Trump entact 100% of the most radical green agenda, and it would not make any difference. — Nobeernolife

It absolutely would.

The world is a lot bigger than the US, and the approx. 1100 bb of proven oil reserves (maybe double that including fracking) will be consumed regardless. Or do you think India, China, and Africa (heading towards a population of 4 billion within the next 50 years) give a wet fart about what the policy the US has?

To assume that a US president can determine the world`s climate is simply megalomania. — Nobeernolife

The US is a world leader, the wealthiest and most powerful country on Earth. To believe its climate policies and involvement in global agreements on climate change has little impact is mind-numbingly ignorant.

But regardless -- what is your point, exactly? We should do nothing, since we're doomed anyway? Common attitude among deniers, but no less ridiculous.

No he hasn’t. He’s an avowed socialist. One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history. — NOS4A2

Such a common statement -- and essentially meaningless. So Scandinavian countries have failed? Of course not. But if you define socialism as policies that fail, then you get your answer in one step. No need to check history -- which you haven't done anyway. Or even the current state of affairs, for that matter.

As a matter of fact, tell the United States socialism has failed -- also a socialist country, just mainly for the rich. Social security, medicare, medicaid, the Post Office, the VA -- all failed socialist programs.

Also, labeling oneself a socialist has nothing to do with being on the right side of history, which Bernie has indeed been. Simplemindedly wiping out what he's done -- like being against the Iraq War, to name one thing -- because he uses the label "Democratic Socialist" is just that, simpleminded. And embarrassing to read.