Election 2020

Bernie Sanders' Troubling Agenda

Don't believe those who tell you that Sanders is some sort of centrist.

|

As Sen. Bernie Sanders looks more and more like the one who may win the Democratic presidential nomination, some tell us that he isn't the radical leftist others make him out to be. Maybe he's not even a socialist, despite his own claims. In fact, the storyline continues, compared to many prominent European political figures, Sanders is mainstream.

Do not be fooled.

It's true that, according to Sanders, his socialist vision for America is one that looks more like Denmark rather than Soviet Russia. Yes, he has praised oppressive communist and socialist regimes in the past, though he may no longer plan on nationalizing industries or implementing wholesale central planning of our economy. So it's true that he isn't a full-fledged socialist—yet.

But that may come. History suggests that Sanders' plans for a system of "free" education, "free" health care, a federal paid leave program, government control of energy production, the Green New Deal, nationwide rent control, and a federal guaranteed-jobs program are only the beginning.

These plans rest on massive government interventions into people's lives, intense redistribution, and a level of coercion that Americans have never before endured. When people resist, the government's grip becomes firmer and more oppressive. If you think I'm exaggerating, think about it is this way: The people of Venezuela asked for their current crisis state when they voted for a regime that promised "free" health care and "free" education.

When Sanders talks about socialism, he isn't likely talking about the massive expropriation of property rights, nationalizing all businesses, or eliminating all but one—the state's—television channel. Nor is he really talking about Denmark's socialism. But even if one assumes that Sanders would not ramp up government intervention beyond what he now promises, what he already has on the table is much more than run-of-the-mill Democratic programs.

Leaving aside the fact that Denmark is a nation of 5.6 million people with the GDP of Wisconsin, by most measures, it's much more economically free than it is socialist. In fact, Denmark has recently scaled back its welfare state and set limits on Danes' fiscal burdens. The country is more open to trade than the United States is.

Yes, Denmark's government is still too big, but it has cut spending, lowered taxes on capital, and allowed for more flexibility in hiring and firing workers. It has also allowed more competition in public schools and health care. In these aspects, Denmark is very different from what Sanders aspires to implement in the United States.

In a recent piece in CapX, the Cato Institute's Ryan Bourne makes an excellent case that while many European governments have implemented one or more of Sanders' dream policies, his vision for America still "goes far beyond any modern social democracy in terms of government size and scope." Consider the most recent example of two left-wing European politicians' plan to grow the U.K.'s government: Labour's Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. As hard as they've tried, what they've dreamt up still isn't as big of an expansion of government control over our wallets and lives as Sanders proposes.

Bourne notes that Sanders would like to grow spending all the way to 70 percent of GDP. In comparison, Labour's 44 percent of GDP figure is small. While Sanders' policies include pretty much everything that Corbyn had planned, the U.S. presidential aspirant adds a few other cherries on top, like forgiving all student debt, banning private health insurance, and massively increasing spending on infrastructure and climate change.

The result would be much higher taxes and more borrowing by Sanders than by any government run by Corbyn and McDonnell. "When it comes to financing their promises, Sanders is arguably more radical again," Bourne writes. "Labour planned to only borrow to invest, raising the deficit by about 2% of GDP per year. But Bernie's tax plans get nowhere near fully funding his agenda. Absent further broad-based tax rises, (Manhattan Institute's Brian) Riedl calculates annual borrowing would soar to around 30% of US GDP if his spending plans were implemented."

When Bourne compares the declared economic platforms that Labour voters were asked to consider versus what Sanders' platform may ask Americans to consider in November, the latter is more radical. The bottom line is: Don't believe those who tell you that Sanders is some sort of centrist.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: Bloomberg Disses Sanders' Socialism: 'Other Countries Tried That. It Was Called Communism and It Just Didn't Work.'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, it’s it like his ideology has killed 100 million or anything.

    1. Some tell us otherwise.

      1. Some are stupid enough to believe otherwise.

        1. And some, in America, say it was necessary and would have been worse if they hadn’t killed miilions

    2. They’re going to run on the slogan “100 million – not enough!”

    3. Do you think that this thoughtless slander will convince anyone who loves their neighbor to not support the most authentic and loving presidential candidate in my life time? You people need to get out more and see the real world.

      1. Can’t tell if Hawksley is a parody or not . Loving? Oh crap I hurt myself laughing so hard. How is in loving? Authentic? Well, being evil can be authentic.

        Bernie Bro, he doesn’t crap about you at all. He’s a liar who if wasn’t in government would be a used car salesman. Here is a question – what has Bernie don’t besides suck off the government teat? How come it’s ok for him to have 3 houses and millions of dollars (Or his wife defraud a college).

        Bernie has no clue about the real world, hell he’s not even a democrat. Apparently neither do you

        1. If you want three houses et al., this is
          america! Youre free, for now, to write your own bestseller and buy however many houses you want. Having spent a lifetime fighting for the little people he deserves at least as luxurious a retirement as someone who spent his life fighting for the dollar. At least, since – and i know this is a controversial opinion ’round here – I think people are more important than money.

          1. That you think that people in here do not care for people shows your total lack of understanding. It is quite the opposite. The idea here is people are cared for so much we trust them to make their own decisions rather than treat them like three year olds. Trust is the key word since your preference treats people like small children.

      2. Sure, a guy who has never worked a job a day in his life knows what workers need.
        The most fake and false candidate ever, running on a platform that has only produced misery and death. A millionaire with 3 homes who rails about the evils of millionaires with 3 homes.

        Trump is the most authentic president ever! Some of the authenticity is not desirable, but it is honest. He says it even when he would be better off keeping his mouth shut.

        People supporting socialist candidates have no business talking about the real world, as they are not be able to recognize it when they see it.

      3. Yes big brother type of love. 1984 here come department of love run by Mr. Sanders and AOC.

  2. Sanders is totally a socialist but he’s more authentic, honest and moral than anyone else on the stage tonight in that shit party he’s seizing the nomination from.

    1. I’m not sure about the moral part. In fact I’m positive he’s completely immoral.

      1. Yeah, endorsement of socialism is flat out evil. He may be more authentic and honest, but he’s authentically and honestly evil.

        If that somehow comes across as less evil than the other Democrats @SIV, your moral compass needs some repair work.

      2. “I’m positive he’s completely immoral.”

        To be sure. But insofar as he is out of the closet with his statist-totalitarian desires he is still a step above the rest of that pack. If only for being honest about his evil intent.

    2. So was Hitler. Adolf literally said that was: “the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated”, and he suggested that, “If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.
      -Mein Kampf

      Hitler literally said that he would gas and exterminate some Jews.

      Thing about Socialists is they always think it will be the other person that gets exterminated.

    3. This had to be satire but I always love when idiots pull the “at least he’s honest card.” Lots of savages are honest. That doesn’t make them good people.

      1. I don’t see where SIV said anything of that sort.

        He’s saying Sanders is the least offensive smell coming from that dumpster fire. Not calling him a bed of roses.

        1. The key word being – offensive –

        2. I’m not even sure that “least offensive” is implied in that post. Maybe “most identifiable”? Like a tire fire.

    4. If half of the stories about how he used campaign donations to get rich are true, then his morality is…. dubious?

      1. THAT is par for the course as far as members of Congress are concerned. His personal and financial life isn’t anything special in that crowd.

        It’s his ideology that puts him in a whole different circle of He’ll from the rest.

    5. Not sure about the moral part but in terms of honesty you mean consistent socialist shithead…sure.

    6. You assume he is revealing what he actually wants to do to fuck up this country.

    7. Sanders is a true believer – and that’s the problem.

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
      ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

    8. That shit Party has fucked itself with Sanders and I don’t feel a bit sorry for them. Sanders may have voted 98% with the Dems, but he has never been a Democrat loyalist until, unless, and only so long as it was good for and worked for Sanders. He didn’t join the party till April 2015, and then he unregistered after the election. Then magically joined the party again in 2019. That should have been enough of a clue if the previous 50 years of his career hadn’t been. If they didn’t want deal with Sanders, they should have rejected his application and told him to run as an independent.

      He’s like the guy who only wants to be your boyfriend starting the week you win a cruise for two, and then breaks up when the ship docks again at home port. But it takes a complete dumbass to sign up for that with the same guy when another free cruise for two comes around again.

      But neither do I have any sympathy for Sanders when the Party elite don’t support him or try to give him a shiv. Senator Gulag has the same interest in the Democratic Party as a tick has in its host. I know, this time he signed a paper promising to be a good Democrat. Oy!

      1. I continue to be amazed that the DNC allow Sanders to share the stage. They should set a criteria something like that any candidate that they recognize (such as include in debates or allow to be voted for at the convention) in the Presidential primaries must have been registered as a Democrat continuously for at least N years where, perhaps, N=8. Sanders’ just uses the Democratic party and the Democrats are, apparently, too stupid to see it.

        1. The present bunch just wish they could get away with admitting they were socialists.

    9. You win the interweb today. Thx for the laffs comrade. See you at bowling tonight.

    10. They’re all angels compared to the lying sackofshit RWers put in the WH.

      Trump lies every time he opens his sphincter.

      1. Tastes vary, but I’m going with the lying sackofshit when the alternative is a fucking commie. Not one of which has ever been an angel compared to anyone or anything.

        1. If you’re looking for angels there’s got to be a better place to start than with politicians…

        2. Confusing a braggart and blowhard for a serial liar is a common mistake with Trump. Name a significant lie Trump has told to manipulate and gain advantage. Try it, it will not be easy.
          Obama told only big lies to manipulate and deceive to obtain his policy objectives. Trump has not done this at all.

          Since the media will never give Trump credit for anything, his ego demands he constantly stroke himself and his brand. Not good, but not the kind of lying that matters, if it is lying at all.

          There is the EVIL party ( D ) and the STUPID party ( R ), not the best choices, but at least there is hope for stupid.

        3. Hey, the problem for a lot of us is that Bernie isn’t commie enough. Once he (and you necktie wearers) address(es) the problem of Western imperialism, we’ll start listening. But in any case anybody who tries to attack him on moral grounds is an abject shill.

      2. Thanks for such an intellectually honest and insightful remark. */sarc

      3. There are treatments for your TDS; you too can stop making an ass of yourself in public.

      4. Yep, Trump may lie, but its about inconsequential bullshit like crowd sizes, or how rich he is, etc.

        When it comes to his platform, what he wants to accomplish, and especially his judicial picks, then he’s been the most transparent president in my lifetime time.

        You are really claiming he’s lying to conceal his real agenda the way Sanders and the Dems are, are you?

        1. That is simply not true. Two minutes of google research will show you that. Orange dummy literally lies about everything- national security, trade, job growth, etc. If you don’t see that, time to take your head out of the sand.

          1. He never said if you like your health care plan you can keep it.

            A lie to tens of millions of Americans about a vital issue that was being hotly debated and he knew he was lying.

            Show me one lie that even comes close to that and I will concede your point.

      5. Aww show us where Trump touched you.
        Yeap, all presidents have been honest all the time.

      6. I can’t quite parse this comment. Are you saying trump tells tall tales with his mouth while he poops, that he talks with his sphincter, or that he’s reached some kind of singularity dissolving any distinction between orifae? I await your answer, as they all seem about equally plausible to me…

  3. Who the fuck says Sanders is a centrist???

    1. No one I’m aware of on this planet. Centrists are all authoritarian assholes.

    2. The communists who follow him.

      1. Question

        How many people follow him

        and how many are freeloaders just looking for the biggest handout and see him as the current front runner for that?

        I know Warren CLAIMS she will be the biggest provider of handouts, but she has an authenticity problem.

        1. Some ignorant, gullible college students are true believers (at least until they have a kid or two and a mortgage) and the rest are just looking for free shit. He really is just a cranky old fucker, a human Quaalude. It will be interesting what the D’s do with his sorry ass. They probably hope he keels over.

    3. Historians.

      By American standards, Sanders is the lunatic fringe, by world standards he’s merely extreme left. But by historical standards, the very fact that he’s standing for a democratic election rather than simply gathering an army and seizing power by way of looting and pillaging and indiscriminate slaughter is enough to make him a moderate.

      1. Uh, lots of statists got elected, always in the last election held – – – – – –
        Germany and Venezuela come to mind immediately.

        1. Don’t forget President for Life Xi

          1. And Erdogon in Turkey.

            1. Democracy is like a bus, when you get to where you want to go then you get off.

        2. lots of statists got elected
          The entire US congress, for instance.

          1. All? So there is none that may actually be there to serve the people and not to further statist.

            1. Well, maybe there are a few. But they are still statist in the sense that they like a powerful state to be a main component of social organization. I don’t see any serious attempts to disassemble the ridiculous state we have now. Just fiddling around the edges.

      2. I don’t know. It seems to me that a certain veteran of Bavarian Army Artillery Corp, whose rise to power is often referenced to denigrate others, so much so that we have an social science law about it, came to power by being elected. It may also be that same former corporal also preached a system were private ownership of business was at least nominally maintained well the government actually controlled every aspect of private enterprise (and thus individual lives).

        1. Message sent without invoking G****n’s Law! Well played.

        2. Wrong. He-who-shall-not-be-named never won an election. He lost an election and was appointed chancellor and then consolidated power through other channels.

    4. That’s exactly what I was thinking. He is an outright enemy of individual and economic freedom.

      1. He and his followers.

        Sanders is a Socialist like Stalin was a Socialist and Hitler was a Socialist. All fucking horrible people who hate freedoms for the masses.

        1. They’re all collectivists. No doubt. And how they figure bread lines and work camps are good because collective reasons, points to a decaying crisis of conscience of the soul.

          They know what they pimp leads to collective misery.

    5. Nobody says Sanders is a centrist. the point of this argument is to create the unsupported illusion that one of them is.

    6. Most of his supporters.

      They claim he’d be “center-right” in Europe (Karl Marx is “center-right” to these people).

    7. The DSA true believers actually believe he’s anti-authoritarian. The people who back him have convinced themselves he can be described by almost any adjective they find there’s any reason to apply.

      One that I know said straight up that one of the big reasons he supports Bernie is that he’s the only candidate promising to use the power of government to reshape almost every aspect of our society in opposition of authoritarianism. That whole idea strikes me as being akin to continually irrigating a patch of land to eliminate moisture from the soil, but there are educated and intelligent people in the world who seem to believe it’s somehow possible for it to be true (and effective).

    8. I think Paul Krugman made some grunts in that direction a couple days ago.

    9. No one.

      Just the usual “journalistic” tactic of putting words in the mouths of others. “Some people say that”…

      Usually, “someone” is simply the author playing sock puppet to avoid responsibility for their own assertions.

      In this case, it’s for an absurd straw man to set up a piece. It’s tiresome, but not as bad as the usual case.

  4. I think his candidacy is a scam. His ideas are utterly insane demogoguery. I want to know how much he’s paying his wife and kids from campaign donations.

  5. hmmm i dont understand about this topic. bu i think this good.
    wanna travelling ? go sewa bus pariwisata jakarta

    1. Of course you don’t understand. You’re a dimwitted Bernie bot!

      Bernie won’t get the nomination. He’s there to energize the less intelligent portions of the base. No way the establishment Ds will allow an independent to take the grand prize. If he appears about to, the stress of the campaign trail will cause a heart attack, or he will take a bad fall, which often happens to guys his age. His supporters will question it, but there won’t be any proof. Just you watch.

      1. Dude, you are arguing with an Indian spambot.

        1. Indonesian. He’s selling bus tours to Jakarta.

          1. Good call. I missed “Jakarta” as the only decipherable word in that post.

            1. All the words are decipherable if you speak Indonesian language.

              sewa = rent
              bus = bus
              pariwisata = travel/tour
              jakarta = jakarta

              meaning: rent jakarta tour bus

          2. Yeah, Indian, just like Liz Warren.

        2. Sometimes the spambots around here make more sense than some of the comments.

          1. Make sense when you think about it!

  6. I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…………THISMONEYWEBSITE

    1. Yeah, I’m with you on this one

  7. I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site..https://bit.ly/2vRaVpe

  8. It’s not socialism if no one resists. It’s just the things we do together.

    So stop resisting.

    1. When rape’s inevitable just relax and enjoy it.

    2. Lie back and think of the Socialist Utopia your sacrifice is helping to give birth to.

  9. It’s very hard to believe Sanders could get elected President. Then again, in February 2016, people said the same about Trump.

    1. Once Trump waded thru the other GOP candidates, it was clear that Trump would most likely win. He had a good message and Hillary is awful.

      Sanders doesn’t have a good message that Americans like and Bernie is awful. Trump is awesome and Americans are benefiting from a strong deregulated economy and lower taxes.

      1. “Make America Great Again” is a much better message that either “Everything is perfect after 8 years of Obama, and we’re just going to tinker around the edges a little” or “Everything sucks, and were going to burn it all down and start over again from scratch”.

    2. “It’s very hard to believe Sanders could get elected President. Then again, in February 2016, people said the same about Trump.”

      Yeah, he just has to hit Trump on the economy, right?
      Ha and ha.

    3. Trump has overcome his largest 2016 hurdle. He has shown he can actually do the job, have success, no new wars, etc. The bar was so low, he has exceeded expectations ridiculously.

      All the significant fears and objections have dissolved. Centrists don’t have to wonder what he might do. Fear mongers have been defanged.

      Mostly.

      1. Yup. Thanks to Democrats and shitty RINOs, Trump is the best President in US history.

        1. Not even close. But he is the best President of the 21st century, that’s not insignificant puts him with:
          18th – Washington
          19th – Lincoln
          20th – tie Coolidge/Reagan
          21st – Trump (subject to revision)

      2. Indeed. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and when he was elected I expected that by three years into his term some really bad stuff (likely including new armed conflicts) would have transpired. However, it seems he isn’t quite as irrational as he seemed (or someone keeps him in check just a bit).

        Clearly if Sanders was the candidate, the choice would be between two devils – one we know and one we don’t yet know and the “devil you know” is generally a safer choice. Of course this is tempered by the fact that Sanders has zero chance of getting the vast majority of his agenda implemented. He’s just been an entertaining footnote in the Senate and he’s very disliked by many of his colleagues including those in the party he caucuses with. The good news is he wouldn’t get much cooperation from Democratic Senators (and probably less from Democratic House members who stand for election every two years).

        1. Actually, based upon recent history, I think the Democrats would give him full throated support. Look at how much pull AOC and her squad have. Look at the craziness in Virginia, Oregon, Washington and California. A Sanders victory will convince the power hungry Democratic establishment that Sanders is the path to more power. They will believe that he has discovered the winning formula that they should emulate. Remember how much political capital they spent pushing Obama’s policies during the first year of his tenure? Remember how they decided to ignore the public push back and go whole hog on the ACA? The ones who ended up paying the price were the very moderates you hope will save us from Sanders. Yet, those moderates generally fall in line when pressured from the party elite (who is willing to sacrifice them for more power).

  10. If you want the state to control everything the serfs do or think, you are a socialists / fascist / communist.
    The only differences are where the title to a few factories is held.

    1. +10000

  11. I agree with this guy:

    …. at one point calling yourself a “Democratic socialist” would be a bridge too far for many voters, including Democrats. But that was before people began to realize how unmoored the American capitalist system is from any sense of ethics or morality. The level of economic inequality and suffering from lack of affordable health care, crushing debt, and a discriminatory and racist for-profit incarceration system in one of the world’s wealthiest countries is astonishing. People are exhausted from working non-stop trying to just survive financially in a system that dangles the carrot of financial stability or wealth always slightly out of reach except for a favored few. Nothing about this is normal and that is fundamentally Bernie Sanders’ so-called “radical” argument. 

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/20/bloomberg-only-looks-electable-bernie-sanders-really-is-column/4812232002/

    1. Degrees of collectivism and statism is what we are witnessing on the left. Any noise about the Democrats offering socialism-lite, being in search of their soul or having a “road to Damascus” moment is code for configuring governmental power and control levels. Nothing more.

      The Mensheviks and the Bolshevik argued over the scope and immediacy of the revolution. Lenin won the hour; the dictatorship of the proletariat couldn’t wait any longer. Five year plans and the camps ensued.

      Last night’s debate echoed that argument, if expressed in less dramatic terms: does the left go full-blown, tear-down socialism mode with Bernie the Udarnik, soft-sell the scheme with the shape- shifting Warren, or transition into it with the remaining establishment horde?

      One way or another, you’ll get the boot on your neck.

      Which brings us to Bloomberg, who will accomplish it under the guise of a dollar sign.

      1. Or to Trump, who plans to fuel the future with an inferno of burning leftism.

    2. Disparate outcomes are not evidence of inequality or immorality and two of the three problems you mentioned (health insurance and debt) are created exclusively by the non-free, non-capitalist market controls for those industries.

      1. Good luck trying to convince Bernie supporters of that, though. You can literally walk them through the ways in which government has massively screwed over healthcare, and they will still proclaim that we should give them more control. It’s just insane.

    3. There is a better term then Democratic Socialist for a system were the government allows private ownership of industry but exerts nearly total control over it through heavy handed regulations and taxation. Guess what it is?
      Much of the reason health care is so expensive, education is so expensive and the incarceration rate is so high is because of the fucking government and you want to give them more power? How is there any fucking logic to that? It isn’t capitalism that created the problems that you described, it is fucking government interference that created all of those problems. Health care cost increased when the government (state level) began telling us what kind of insurance policies we could purchase and from whom. The destroyed the free market for health insurance and created state backed monopolies. That isn’t capitalism. Also the demanded every policy had to cover XYZ and disallowed personal choice in selecting what coverage each individual wanted or needed. If you look at auto insurance, this used to be the same thing. However, massive deregulation of auto insurance drove down prices by increasing competition. The same thing with the telecommunication market. The government had severely limited who you could buy from, so prices went through the roof. Once they started deregulating and allowing competition, prices dropped like a rock.
      The very things you describe, the working to exhaustion (which is actually bullshit, because on average Americans work far less hours, for far greater pay, even adjusted for inflation, then we did in the 1950s) are almost always the result of the government trying to manage the private market. And your solution to this government created problem is to give the government more power.

      1. A lot of that spending goes to private companies who in turn lobby and line the coffers of the politicians. Billions go to private contractors.

        DHS for example has a whole system of ‘detention centers’ prisons actually, all of that is run by private contact, the actual facility, food, transportation, medical care, those are great gigs if you can get them. The government pays well. Who is building the wall, and how much profit in that? All of the money people make off of prisons in general.

        Let’s not even talk about the defense industry, medicine, on and on.

        The whole thing is a scam and doesn’t matter what color tie they wear.

        1. And everything you just mention still are government created problems, because the government sought enough power that the situation you described became inevitable.

          1. Hence the libertarian call for limited government.

            1. And Constitutional Conservatives (I tend to follow more in this camp).

    4. Your whole agreement and this writers opinion can only be the result of a complete lack of knowledge of history and an indifference to how the issues you whine about actually became a problem.

    5. “…. at one point calling yourself a “Democratic socialist” would be a bridge too far for many voters, including Democrats. But that was before people began to realize how unmoored the American capitalist system is from any sense of ethics or morality.”
      You (and he).
      Are.
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

      1. Isn’t it funny (as in not humorous at all) that the very problems the blame capitalism for were actually created by government trying to exert control of free enterprise? So their solution is to give government even more control of free enterprise (and liberty)?

        1. I wish I could credit this properly:
          Capitalism does just fine absent communism, but communism cannot exist absent capitalism.

    6. Ok, retard. Why don’t you and your favorite comrades go start a commune someplace. I would even help contribute to a fund to get you started, providing you put webcams in all the public areas.

    7. So you are concerned about the number of young black men in prison but you also want to ban guns? How stupid are you people?

    8. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

      Haha

    9. “carrot of financial stability or wealth always slightly out of reach”

      Its only out of reach because the ATV, the boat, and the 3 cars in the driveway are in the way.

    10. First it’s a lady name Kirsten Powers. Second, she works for CNN. So yeah, spin away.

  12. He and Warren are advocating property appropriation. They just call it a wealth tax. It is basically a slow drip form that takes a few years. It is a Fabian socialists wet dream.

    1. It’s also a foot in the door. Once we’ve established that the government has a right to take personal property, then we’re just haggling over degrees.

      At first, the income tax was only supposed to affect the highest earners as well.

      1. Agree. As more money is needed the barrier between those who are taxed and those who don’t gets lowered. The problem is that bureaucracy measures power by the size of their budget and the number of people in their budget. So, there is no impetus to be efficient.

      2. The financial transaction tax is a wealth tax on every single American. Every 401k, IRA, savings account, pension management- every transaction will be taxed at the save level or the bank/brokerage/account level. The deposit and the withdrawl. I don’t believe that this will stay at .02% and neither should anyone else who has half a fucking brain. The hilarious thing is that Bloomberg climbed on board with this Sanders/Warren/AOC/Eurozone idea. Let Bloomie make it retroactive on Bloomberg Inc., sell some assets and write a 20 billion dollar check to the Feds, who some skin in the game.

        It seems that there are no centrists in the Democrat Political Party, only statists.

        1. show some skin in the game

  13. Sanders isn’t a socialist, he’s a communist. An absolute true believer as well, which makes him the most dangerous kind of communist because he will never, ever look at results and question his own policies.

    1. Actually what Sanders seems to describe seems much more like another form of early 20th century Italian socialism. Private ownership is allowed, but the government controls every aspect of industry.

      1. Which is the way that America already is (along with most other countries).

          1. Actually, to a degree is he is correct. Since we have never repealed most of the New Deal (and in many cases have expanded it) he isn’t completely wrong. Who was one of FDR’s inspirations for the New Deal? We haven’t gone all the way and rejected some of the worst aspect of that form of government (which actually tended to be more from the German school then the Italian school anyhow), the similarities are enough to make one sick. Interesting enough, the very person everyone on the left likes to label as a fascist, is the one who seems to be undoing at least some of the policies that have made us a fascist lite country (not referring to the racism but to the actual economic policies).

            1. Let me clarify even more, I am not labeling Trump a racist, I was referring to the racist policies of historic fascism (and I am not labeling Trump a fascist either).

      2. Which is what we call fascism. Mussolini was a socialist.

        It’s a labeling nightmare!

        But it’s all derivative of Marxism-socialism so it’s all retard speak to me.

    2. “Sanders isn’t a socialist, he’s a communist. An absolute true believer as well, which makes him the most dangerous kind of communist because he will never, ever look at results and question his own policies.“

      Bingo. Comrade Bernie wants the state to become the party-at which point the party becomes the state. Thereafter, results, policies, and programs become discretionary and modified according to the whims of the ruling caste.

      Disregard yesterday’s truths, expectations or what you thought you knew. You must be confused or a traitor. Comrade Bernie and his statists know best your future and the road to your liberty.

      Without looking, and always.

  14. “Don’t believe those who tell you that Sanders is some sort of centrist.”

    Just talk with one of his supporters for 5 seconds to dispel that idea.

  15. Sanders is the obvious libertarian choice. He is 78, has a poor record in getting legislation passed and has no power base in the Democratic Party. Look at how ineffective Trump was in getting the Republican Party to actually implement any of his agenda (no wall, no infrastructure, no movement on sanctions against Russia, etc.). Bernie will be far more ineffective. He will make speeches, get angry, and then get nothing done. His own party will undermine him at every opportunity.

    1. ” His own party will undermine him at every opportunity.”

      It might be too late, though, once his message has reached the American public. America has marginalized people like Sanders for years and kept them from making TV appearances where they can appeal directly to the public. I’m thinking mostly here about Noam Chomsky, supposedly America’s foremost intellectual, but has never been invited on FOX, CNN or the rest of America’s media giants.

      The problem is that the media has no choice but to cover the number one contender for the democrat (or republican) nomination, no matter what they think of the politics. This will be a boost for progressive socialism, democratic socialism and, of course, communism which the democratic party will not be able to control.

      1. Or the light of day will expose his stupid, historically illiterate policy for the pure bullshit that they are. One can only hope, but it probably is a forlorn hope, because many Americans believe Fascism was a form of capitalism and conservatism rather then progressive.

        1. “Or the light of day will expose his stupid, historically illiterate policy for the pure bullshit that they are.”

          That has not been the strategy since the cold war. Instead dissenting voices have been marginalized and denied a place in the ‘national conversation.’ That won’t be possible if someone unacceptable like Sanders, Chomsky, or Peltier ever get a shot at the democratic (or republican) nomination.

          If Sanders got the nomination, he would gain a platform from which to preach Socialism, and Americans will be hearing it for the first time. He’s a very persuasive speaker and rightists and centerists should not dismiss him.

          1. Hearing it for the first time? Where do you think FDR got the inspiration for his New Deal from? No, they aren’t hearing it for the first time, it is just being relabeled (and once again, what Sanders is describing is not consistent with the label is using).

            1. Most Americans weren’t alive when FDR, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman etc were promoting socialism. And, thanks to the blanket censorship of socialistic ideas the media exercises, they haven’t been exposed since then, either. Sanders will be persuading an audience who have never before heard Socialism defended and advocated. It’ll be a first time in the lives of most Americans. This should be very worrying to those who want these ideas suppressed.

              1. Oh, the people that want Socialism will find out one way or another.

                1. You don’t have to want anything in particular. Just watch Sanders’ debates or press conferences. Thanks to Sanders’ presidential run, it’s never been easier to learn about Socialism in America.

                  1. Are you on staff or just a brain-damaged supporter of socialism?

                    1. Just telling you the facts you don’t wish to hear. Soon, Americans will know more about Socialism than ever before. I understand why this troubles you.

                    2. “…Soon, Americans will know more about Socialism than ever before. I understand why this troubles you.”

                      You flatter yourself; I’m all for people knowing exactly how socialism is a horrible and dangerous fantasy.

      2. “…I’m thinking mostly here about Noam Chomsky, supposedly America’s foremost intellectual, but has never been invited on FOX, CNN or the rest of America’s media giants…”

        Your cite(s) went missing again.

        1. I know, who exactly claims Chomsky is America’s foremost intellectual?

          1. New York Times, most notoriously.

            1. Yeah, but I will that the Babylon Bee or the Onion’s opinion before the NYT on most issues. Hell, if the NYT anymore printed that there will be a full moon on March 9th, I may very well have to go outside and check the moon on that night just to see if they were accurate.

              1. Chomsky’s intellectual stature rests mainly on his linguistic work published in the 1950s (and 60s?).

                1. Like Gould, if he stuck to his lasts, he wouldn’t have made such an ass of himself.

                  1. Chomsky’s opportunities to make an ass of himself were severely limited by the media’s blanket suppression of him, Sanders and other similar dissenters. Centerists and rightists like Sagan and Gould faced nothing like this censorship.

                    1. You are full of shit.
                      Cite for your claim Chomsky was ‘suppressed’? You don’t have it; he never was. He’s a boring piece of crap not worth quoting outside his specialty.
                      Sagan and Gould centrists or rightists?
                      “Sagan sometimes used his prestige for political purposes, as in his campaign for nuclear disarmament and his opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative of U.S. Pres. Ronald Reagan. In 1983 he cowrote the paper that introduced the concept of “nuclear winter,” a catastrophic global cooling that would result from a nuclear war.
                      https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-Sagan

                    2. “We generally refer to Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) as a Marxist due to his well-known leftist leanings, and activities such as his involvement in the ‘Marxist Science for the People’ group (with even more ardent Marxist Richard Lewontin). The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School….”
                      https://creation.com/what-is-the-evidence-that-gould-was-a-marxist

                    3. “Chomsky was suppressed by the media”

                      Ow, my sides!
                      If hagiographies in the Atlantic, New Yorker and Time, as well as regular hot bj’s from WaPo, the NYT and the Globe count as media suppression, I can’t imagine what favoritism would look like.

          2. “I know, who exactly claims Chomsky is America’s foremost intellectual?”

            Chomsky.
            Great guy, too; thought Pol Pot was just misunderstood.

            1. Americans under President Reagan did more to support the KR than Chomsky ever did.

              1. “Americans under President Reagan did more to support the KR than Chomsky ever did.”

                WIH are you bullshitting about? Oh, and your TDS ate your cite.

                1. Reagan was US president between Carter and Bush. You might look it up. KR is short for Khmer Rouge (Red Khmer). During Reagan’s term, the US insisted that the Pol Pot regime was the legitimate government of Cambodia, (or Democratic Kampuchea) because the US wasn’t keen on Hun Sen, the one eyed, Soviet backed leader of the communists who chased Pol Pot from the capital and took over the country.

                  Only when George H W Bush was lining his ducks at the UN to get international support for his actions against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, did the US drop its support of Pol Pot and join the rest of the international community and recognize the Hun Sen government, which is still in power today, by the way. I realize this is all news to you and most of my other readers here, and I urge you to follow up if you are interested.

                  1. You might be interested to learn that Pol Pot’s predecessor, the US backed military dictator, was named, dig this, Lon Nol. Yes, a palindrome. (same backwards as forwards).

                  2. Does that make Reagan the US foremost intellectual?
                    Just asking why you bother trying to justify Chomsky’s pathetic ethical norms by comparing him to Reagan?

                    1. “comparing him to Reagan?”

                      Reagan was a corporate flack and Hollywood celebrity. Access to the media was the least of his problems.

                    2. mtrueman
                      February.20.2020 at 10:24 pm
                      “..Reagan was a corporate flack and Hollywood celebrity. Access to the media was the least of his problems.”

                      Which, of course, does not address the question at all, scumbag.

              2. Funny. I live in Cambodia, i never here anyone here say they blame the US, or even more ridiculously Reagan. They blame the communists. Pol Pot first joined the French Communist party in the 40’s then the Hanoi based Khmer Viet Minh in the 50s.

                Reagan took office in 1981, The Vietnamese invasion that effectively ended the Khmer Rouge regime happened 3 years earlier in 1978, after the Vietnamese and Khmer Communists fell out.

                1. I’m not blaming Reagan for anything. Nor Chomsky, either. I’m pointing out that thanks to Reagan’s policies, the US provided diplomatic cover for Pol Pot’s regime long past its due date. I wrote about this in more detail elsewhere on the page if you are interested in learning more, as you should considering you’ve chosen to live there.

      3. “America’s foremost intellectual, but has never been invited on FOX, CNN or the rest of America’s media giants.”

        Noam Chomsky rejects many offers to appear on TV. He says he’s never given enough time to explain himself. He prefers written pieces, which you can find on places such as CNN:

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/index.html

        The idea that Chomsky is being censored out of the public discourse for his political views is simply a myth, and a coping mechanism, perpetuated by people who think those views are supposed to be more popular than they actually are.

        1. I don’t recall seeing Chomsky or any other dissident being given the chance to promote their political ideas on bourgeois television. It’s not surprising either, since this is the best way to keep the American public from learning them. It won’t be possible if Sanders wins the nomination.

          1. There’s lots of people who aren’t on TV a lot.

            It’s not because they’re all socialists.

            If you google, you’ll find Chomsky citing my stated reason above.

            1. “It’s not because they’re all socialists.”

              Chomsky calls himself an Anarchist. And I don’t think he or anyone else holding such unacceptable views is allowed to present their ideas on TV. It makes perfect sense. What better way to suppress heterodox ideas than denying them a platform?

              1. It also makes perfect sense that boring, irrelevant, tone deaf people who can’t sense the moment aren’t on TV a lot.

    2. He’s Abe Simpson without the slippers.

      1. Abe Simpson also served in World War 2 and worked most of his life in private industry, as a salesman.

        1. I think Abe was a salesman, something like that.

    3. “Bernie will be far more ineffective. He will make speeches, get angry, and then get nothing done. His own party will undermine him at every opportunity.”

      So your assertion is to not worry about it because nothing will happen and he will flame out? Sorry, as a matter of history, I’ll point out that is the most lazy and ignorantly hopeful perspective one can imagine. We have heard that before, always with terrible results.

      I hate to always start with Germany, but that is the most egregious example that most people are aware of and can understand. The German people were an extremely intelligent and educated populace on a world scale. It should have made sense that once they realized who they had, they would have no longer backed him and he would have flamed out. A history of past failures and disastrous policy ideas and shining a light on them rarely has anything to do with disinfecting the mess.

      The simple fact is that tyranny makes LOTS of friends in high places who want part of the action. And control of the budgets mean there is a lot of action to be spread around. So long as they are successful, they will control future access to change. And so long as you can keep the identity politics going, the plebes, sycophants, and true believers will create the fervor for continued success. There is plenty of footage of clamoring mobs heralding Hitler as he rides triumphantly down the street, not only in Germany but in the countries he conquered such as Austria.

      To point, the old Democrat Blue Dogs are a thing of the past. There hasn’t been a moderate/crossover vote block since 2010 when the majority of them betrayed their principles and constituency for Obama’s ACA and knew their future was doomed at home. Since then, we have seen a massive defection to the socialist left [mostly avoiding the labels to date] to the point that even Pelosi had to reverse herself to maintain control over them.

      4 years ago, Democrats chose Sanders as the rube who would guarantee a Clinton nomination under the theory that nobody would vote for a declared socialist, so he would be the derp with dreams of grandeur. Fast forward 4 years, and now he’s the Party’s lead contender. So pardon me if your theory that exposing his to the light of day would kill the fungus that he is.

      1. I would point out even more recently how much power a certain group of freshman congresswomen from extremely safe seats seem to wield. Or the first two years of the Obama administration, when despite mounting public anger, the democratic party decided to sacrifice their moderates by ignoring public outcry. I would also point to Virginia, California, Oregon and Washington.

      2. Hitler was a 44 year old man when he took power, and leader of an active organized political with strong supporters in industry, the old aristocracy and the military across Germany. Sanders is a 78 year old man leading a rag tag coalition of hippies, minorities and angry school teachers. It is hard for me to quake in my boots at the thought of Sanders leading a revolution. It will be a fiasco.

  16. ” though he may no longer plan on nationalizing industries or implementing wholesale central planning of our economy. ”

    I gather you’re not actually following his campaign, then? I can think of at least two industries he’s currently promising to nationalize: Health insurance, and electricity generation.

    1. +10000

    2. I caught a snippet of something yesterday and he was going hard that online platforms cannot be allowed to exist as private companies.

      1. Well sure. You have to control the flow of information to seize power. Everyone knows that.

    3. A quick story about electricity through a Quebec perspective.

      Hydro-electricity is Quebec’s major business. Know how they built it? From the ground up the fair way by issuing bonds to raise capital and getting companies (including from Italy) to build its massive hydro infrastructure. They didn’t go and steal it from existing grids nor was there any nationalization. Just to show you, they left Westmount power (a wealthy, autonomous suburb within Montreal) alone and it still operates to this day. They didn’t go in and steal it.

      Bernie, by calling for nationalization, wants to STEAL the grids.

      Like the fuckers do in Venezuela.

      So Bernie can fuck off and die if ever uses Quebec as an example. There’s a lot to criticize this province for (the latest being its idiotic and irresponsible war with Alberta over pipelines allying with that piece of shit left-wing left-over ham sandwich Justin) but this isn’t one of them – though one can even have harsh words for Hydro-Quebec and how it operates.

      Point it, it was built from the ground up.

      If Sanders and his little cultists had a modicum of self-dignity they’d propose a plan to do the same.

      Instead, it’s the same calls for stealing and pillaging from the left.

  17. Watching clingers fantasize about regaining competitiveness in the culture war is fascinating.

    Bigotry and backwardness doom clingers in America. Always have and, so far as can reasonably be foreseen, always will.

    But keep praying for that miracle, clingers. Reason-defying hope may ease your path toward replacement.

    1. Keep telling us how much you are winning, because that is a sure sign of a winner, having to convince others that they are winning. I mean look at how hard Andy Reid had to convince everyone that his team won the Superbowl this year.

    2. Know how those silica gel packs come with a warning to not eat?

      Arthur didn’t heed it and now we see what happens when ingested.

    3. Haha. You seem to be the one fantasizing about an elusive victory, ever just out of reach, old man. Your age of Aquarius is not coming.

      1. It did but it is over. Or was that just the blotter acid and the Grateful Dead concert we went to? Can’t remember actually.

  18. “When Sanders talks about socialism, he isn’t likely talking about the massive expropriation of property rights, nationalizing all businesses, or eliminating all but one—the state’s—television channel.”

    If he thinks there are too many brands of deodorant, why wouldn’t he think people should have fewer outlets to get their news?

    1. No they can still own the company, Sanders is just going to exert total government control over the company. A certain 20th century Italian Progressive and Socialist proposed a very similar economic plan. It also was copied in Germany and Spain. How well did that work out? Fucking lets stop calling him a Democratic Socialist and start using the correct term for what he (and Warren) actually are proposing. Wonder how their idiot sycophants in the Antifa movement would react if their preferred policies were given the historically accurate label they deserve.

      1. It worked out pretty well in Italy and Spain actually. Mussolini was doing just fine until he followed Hitler into war. Franco saved Spain from Communism. Although talking about history with the sort of people who think Hitler was “left wing” is always a waste of time.

        1. Franco was a dictator who suppressed his people’s liberty, terrorized historically minority populations and severely hindered the economic growth of Spain for decades. Mussolini was all for war, he just wanted it in Africa and southern Europe. He wanted to re-establish the Roman Empire. As for Hitler he was left wing on a variety of subjects. Fascism was and is a child of early 20th century progressivism, and there is no way to deny that.

    2. Well, people don’t “need” any deodorant at all. Which is good, since under Bernie-ism production shortages will lead to long lines–and who has time to stand in line for deodorant?

  19. “Don’t believe those who tell you that Sanders is some sort of centrist”

    Hey, thanks for the heads up, bro.

  20. Has the author of this piece had some of the other writers here at Reason read it. I think there may be one or two writers here who may be surprised that Sanders isn’t a centrist like they believe.

    1. I know they’ve been infected with TDS but I hope it’s not that bad!

      1. Check out Megan McArdle’s (former, sometimes current Reason writer) opinion piece justifying how she will vote for Sanders over Trump.

        1. I think it was in the WaPo.

        2. Saw that. Pretty horrible indeed.

  21. “Don’t believe those who tell you that Sanders is some sort of centrist.”

    Since Veronique is literally the only person I have ever seen float the idea, I hereby immediately stop believing her.

  22. I can’t believe Bernie is this popular.

    It’s appalling really.

    1. But how popular is he really? So far, in IA and NH, 75% of the tiny groups of party activists voted against him.

      And haven’t we learned to ignore public polls?

    2. You might have an easier time if you listened to Sanders and his rivals speak. Sanders is a natural. His rivals are stilted and insincere.

      1. Yes, that seems to be a hallmark of Sanders ideological ascendants, stirring speeches. That always seems to work out so well after the get in control.

        1. “That always seems to work out so well after the get in control.”

          Good oratorical skills are a plus for any politician.

          1. Good oratorical skills are not necessary to convince losers that they are actually victims, and that the villains must be punished.

            “Everything is so terrible and unfair”. ™

            Bernie’s entire platform in 6 words.

            1. “Good oratorical skills are not necessary to convince losers that they are actually victims, and that the villains must be punished.”

              They certainly help. The ability to hold attention, persuade and motivate to action is usually recognized as something positive in a politician.

      2. He’s a natural alright.

        A natural commie.

        1. “A natural commie.”

          And more importantly, a natural crowd pleaser. Rightists and Centerists should be concerned.

          1. Wasn’t Hitler a crowd pleaser?

            1. Certainly. So was Churchill. Some politicians got it, some don’t. Good oratorical (speaking) skills are generally considered a plus for politicians.

              1. And good mass-murder skills are practically required for lefty thugs. As are brain-damaged supporters.

                1. And rapist skills are just as important for Guatemalan asylum seekers, let’s not forget. Honeymoons, too.

                  1. Did your mommy think that was a clever response?

      3. “You might have an easier time if you listened to Sanders and his rivals speak. Sanders is a natural. His rivals are stilted and insincere.”

        Oh, goodie!
        A smooth-talking, well-mannered thug, and trueman’s in love!

        1. If you’ve seen his rivals, you should be able to recognize they are not up to his standards. You are right to feel threatened by this man.

          1. “If you’ve seen his rivals, you should be able to recognize they are not up to his standards. You are right to feel threatened by this man.”

            Not at all “threatened’ by this thug; you and he will lose probably to another D, since the party prefers to have a candidate electable by other than brain-damaged voters.

            1. News for you Sevo. Leftist thugs don’t need to worry about their ‘electability.’ Neither do those Guatemalan rape convoys heading your way.

              1. Did your mommy think that was a clever response?

                1. Just remembering the last time you got worked up so much. It was the time of the Guatemalan rape convoy, wasn’t it?

                  1. “Just remembering the last time you got worked up so much. It was the time of the Guatemalan rape convoy, wasn’t it?”

                    I have no idea to what you are referring, but it’s not hard remembering when you last made such a fucking ass of yourself.

                    1. It’s good to hear your memory is not completely shot.

  23. Compared the current agenda of stupidity and corruption, I will take the Socialism, please

    He needs the votes of Democrats from places like Alabama, West Virginia and elsewhere to enact an agenda

    The toxic combination of racist evangelicals and screw the poor libertarians needs to end, however that happens

    1. You can vote your way into socialism but you can’t vote your way out. You have to fight for your rights back after much blood has been shed.

      I’d rethink what you just wrote.

      If you think socialists don’t come with their own brand of toxic racism….well, it’s time a) you stop reading that idiot Arthur and b) read a history book about socialism. And not one written by Zinn.

      1. So you voted your way into fascism, how much blood must be shed to get us out of that?

        1. Fascism example?

          1. Clarity?

            1. No actual examples of what fascism truly is and how that applies to Trump. You are just offering slogans and expecting people to accept that as evidence.

              1. Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition

                centralizing control in an individual is the essence of authoritarian

                then start with the ‘blame everything on the other’

                right down the road

                from day one

                1. Fascism is marked by the government controlling all aspects of private enterprise via law and regulations.

              2. ‘MAGA’ is an ultra nationalist slogan

                1. How is making the country great again an ultra nationalist slogan? And further, why shouldn’t the President’s aim be to make America a great country?

          2. He thinks Trump is a Literal Fascist. Or Hitler. Lefties mix the two up all the time.

            Illiterates that they are.

            1. They believe that reducing the size and scope of government, particularly the executive branch, is fascism.

              1. If you reduce the size and scope of gov’t[the goal of no one, ever]
                without reducing the size and scope of corporate power, you have handed the power of the people to an unelected oligarchy

                see Russia

                1. “If you reduce the size and scope of gov’t[the goal of no one, ever]
                  without reducing the size and scope of corporate power, you have handed the power of the people to an unelected oligarchy”
                  You.
                  Are.
                  Full.
                  Of.
                  Shit.
                  And either a liar or a fucking ignoramus besides.

                  1. more articulate response

                    trumpista much?

                    trump would be a more successful fascist if he were not a moron

                    1. Do you debate our just launch talking points?

                    2. Demagoguery and ad hominids may seem to you to be a witty retort but they display a shallowness of thought and a willingness to be open minded to those who are ideological different than yourself. It is as blindly dogmatic as those you label as such.

                2. Oligarchy does not equal fascism. Also, you can’t have an oligarchy without a strong crony government. The chances of an oligarchy developing without a strong government is as close to zero as possible.

            2. He resembles what in your opinion?

              if the foo sh1ts…

        2. arpiniant1
          February.20.2020 at 11:22 am
          “So you voted your way into fascism, how much blood must be shed to get us out of that?”

          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

          1. You
            have
            failed
            to
            make
            a
            point

            1. You.
              Are.
              Still.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.
              That *is* the point, you bag of shit.

              1. very articulate

                not

  24. Liz Warren’s agenda is pretty much just as troubling. I realize she’s fallen in the polls, but in this crazy political environment, I think it’s a mistake to assume Bernie will get the nomination at this point.

    1. Warren might be cratering in the polls, but the progressive media seems to be trying to resurrect her this morning, they are nearly unanimous in labeling her the “winner” of the debate last night (I didn’t watch it nor do I care, they are all worse then shit in my opinion, except possibly Amy Klobucher, or don’t get me wrong, she is shit, but she is composted shit, not quite as bad as the free stuff).

      1. Since the age of Trump, debates are scored differently.

        Now the winner is whoever collects the most scalps.

        Warren is uniquely qualified for this.

        1. Haha. Nice.

      2. “they are all worse then shit in my opinion”

        Good lord man, it’s THAN. A is bigger THAN B. I woke up THEN I brushed my teeth.

        1. Oh for fuck sake. Who the fuck cares that I made a grammatical error, does it in any way refute my hypothesis?

          1. One error, I will excuse. The same error twice on the same page, no sir, I will put my foot down. Even Sevo, despite all his inane contributions here, manages to post impeccably spelled inanities. You have no excuse.

            1. trueman, given his bullshit posts here, is an asshole besides.

            2. So the self appointed hall monitor that you are is getting drunk on your perceived power. Okay got it. Still no one but you gives a fuck that I made this mistake (even if I did it twice) and your puerile need to point it out rather then engage the actual content of my post illustrates your intellectual dishonesty and sophomoric debating skills.
              Gee and I feel so chagrined that you put your foot down. Just like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

              1. “Still no one but you gives a fuck ”

                Nobody but me (with Sevo chiming in) is commenting. Than, then? Come on, man!

                “rather then engage the actual content of my post illustrates your intellectual dishonesty and sophomoric debating skills”

                You’re doing it again. And the actual content doesn’t interest me.

                1. “…And the actual content doesn’t interest me.”

                  Fucking piece of shit admits the arguments are irrelevant to his bullshit posts.

                  1. Than, then, irrelevant?

  25. Denmark.

    What kind of idiot thinks Denmark is in any way comparable to the US. Denmark is a small, cohesive, homogeneous country where you can get relative consensus on a broad range of issues. It can be managed efficiently. The US is not even remotely like that.

    1. “The US is not even remotely like that.”

      The US has blacks. They spoil everything for everyone else. Is this really the platform you want to run on?

      1. What did I say about race? I don’t even believe in race as a real thing.

        1. This is a typical explanation of why something that works in Denmark won’t work in the USA. If you’ve been reading comments here this won’t be the first time you come across it. There’s a significant portion of the US population who view blacks as a no-account bunch of violent, over sexed free loaders. Not saying you believe this to be true, in fact I’m pretty sure you don’t. Just that for bigots demonizing blacks flows very naturally out of ‘the US is not Denmark’ argument.

          1. “…Just that for bigots demonizing blacks flows very naturally out of ‘the US is not Denmark’ argument.”

            For scumbag idiots, trotting out the race card is a way top avoid noting that there is little commonality b3tween the US and Denmark.

          2. Your obsessions are not my problem. You did accuse me of that.

            I would explain my point further but not worth my effort.

            1. ” You did accuse me of that.”

              I see that. And I didn’t mean to draw you in personally, and I’m sorry if you took it that way. What I did mean was that the argument of the difference between Denmark and USA, for many white nationalists that make their home here on the board, hinges on America’s blacks and how they make efforts like universal health care an impossibility due to their sponging ways.

              1. “What I did mean was that the argument of the difference between Denmark and USA, for many white nationalists that make their home here on the board, hinges on America’s blacks and how they make efforts like universal health care an impossibility due to their sponging ways.”

                Which is one more fucking lie, liar.

                1. Would that it were, Sevo.

          3. Pointing out the fact that the US has far more ethnic diversity then the nearly homogeneous population of a state has nothing to do with racism. It is pointing out a fact. That doesn’t make Denmark better or worse, it just creates a different dynamic. But I realize that is way to hard a concept for you. It is far easier for you to argue inane grammar mistakes and straw men, as opposed to actually trying to understand complex arguments. Your post show that you revel in simplistic thinking and have difficulty understanding abstract thoughts. You try to force people into your false dichotomy because you are unable to think in anything more than simplistic binary concepts.
            There are several more differences between Denmark and the US, other then the ethnic makeup. There is little shared history. Denmark is considerably smaller, with a far more concentrated population. Denmark is a far smaller economic power. Denmark is a long established monarchy. I could go on, but you will be unable to understand outside your narrow prism, and I doubt you even want to try.

            1. Actually I was not thinking about ethnic diversity at all. The US has regional diversity and competing economic interests in different areas of the country. There are resulting differences in how people in general view the role of government and what they expect.

              Thus Californians have differing views and interests in general from those in the Midwest or southern states and we see that in how they tend to vote.

              The larger and more diverse (again I don’t mean race or ethnicity) any country is the more difficult it is for a central government to achieve consensus and rule effectively. Smaller countries, especially those with long histories people identify with, tend to be more cohesive and homogeneous in a political sense.

              1. I wasn’t implying you were. I was responding to mtrueman’s strawman interpretation.

                1. Understood just wanted to make it clear to readers what I meant.

          4. If you want to be a real Democrat, mtrueman, you’re going to have to learn how to race-bait properly.
            What you tried to pull here was stupid and weak.

            1. “you’re going to have to learn how to race-bait properly.”

              I have the best teachers right here. Scummiest, too.

              1. Yeah, unreason writers are pretty shitty and shameless.

              2. “I have the best teachers right here. Scummiest, too.”

                You keep accusing others of racism, and yet no one here (other than you) has made a comment which could be remotely associated with racism.
                Perhaps, you racist piece of shit, you should check in the mirror for a scumbag racist. And liar besides.
                Fuck off and die.

          5. Well, that’s easily disproved by pointing out that there is no difference in education, political stability, economic prosperity, individual liberty, and lifespan among racially homogeneous populations in places like Denmark, Japan, and various African nations. Oops, sorry, what I meant to say was that China has the same heterogeneity problems as America, with no black population for those accursed racists to blame.

            1. “Oops, sorry, what I meant to say was that China has the same heterogeneity problems as America, with no black population for those accursed racists to blame.”

              China doesn’t need no “black population” to scapegoat. They have 1000s of foreign students from Africa who have in the past served as scapegoats in intra party disputes. Look up the Nanjing African student fracas if you want to learn more. Other than that I’m not sure what your point was. Still, Nanjing African student riots. Never too late to learn something new.

      2. You are an idiot. Where did Echo say race? You are projecting your own racism. US is a large country with lots of different cultures. Something important in New York won’t be in say North Dakota or Houston. Hell, Texas has a crap load of trucks, Philly doesn’t.

        Denmark is small, and homogeneous country. There is a reason there is only 1 Denmark but 50 states.

        1. He never mentioned race.

          “You are projecting your own racism. ”

          No, I’m lifting the carpet and revealing the racism we all know is there, but are desperate not to acknowledge. Intellectual cowardice.

  26. Government is ALREADY INTERVENING IN PEOPLE’S LIVES.

    By distributing wealth and advantage in the form of tax breaks and subsidies for the very very rich.

    Sanders just wants to change that equation in favor of those with far, far less.

    1. Hint, the rich pay far more taxes, the middle class and lower class have far more tax breaks. You are full of shit.

    2. “Sanders just wants to change that equation in favor of those with far, far less.”

      Stupidity or sarc?

    3. I’d go for INTERVENING LESS IN OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES.

  27. Bernie is a admitted communist in failing health and he is a creepy old fart..he has zero chance of winning the election much less the goofy primary in which he is in competition with other non-admitted communist candidates…all want to call a cease to the Trump era, the prosperity, down sizing of the admin of the Fraud Barry Sotero mandates, edicts and admin of terror, fraud, non transparency and a malicious agenda….I don’t worry about Bernie, I worry about the DNCommunist Party…..

    1. no, he’s not AT ALL an “admitted communist.”

      NOTHING OF THE KIND, liar.

      1. Sanders stated he doesn’t mind being called a communist. He, in the past, campaigned for the Communist party and he stated that in his heart he is a communist (during the 1980s). So, actually you are the one who is sadly misinformed.

  28. As Chipper Jones put it so well, “They believe that reducing the size and scope of government, particularly the executive branch, is fascism.”

    The fact that close to 50% of Americans can even entertain such an idiotic contradictory assertion really puts on full display the lack -of very, very, very basic reasoning of the left.

    Bernie (Most of all left runners), “We stupefied 50% of the nation through communist FAFSA granted ?education?…. NOW it’s time to stupefy the rest with FREE and completely communist ?education?.”

  29. Well said. For one thing, Sanders has actually said a lot of really radical yes it’s real socialism, type of stuff. Praying Coooba, the USSR, Sandinistas, etc. He has advocated for public ownership of telecoms, energy, banking etc. And as the author points out, the obsession with Denmark is really silly. It’s a tiny country, with a largely wealthy and homogeneous population. Denmark wisely CUT spending the past decade, and while they’ve now increased it under new Social Democrat policies, their yearly deficit is only projected at 0.1%. The US can’t get close to 0.1%, and that’s without a massive overhaul of our healthcare system, free education etc. Our government will simply not do this efficiently. Ain’t happening.

    I would say, however, that we also need to cut defense spending. The Right talks about cutting spending and then supports spending an absurd amount of money on the military. It’s unnecessary. It’s like how the US has approx 6,100 nuclear warheads. Why? Why would we ever need more nukes than we could ever use? I think the military-industrial complex has lobbyists who get a lot of money funneled into their coffers, and then they tell the American people, “we need to spend those hundreds of billions because al-Qaeda…or something.” No more wasteful spending by either party.

    1. Weapon systems and troops are not the reason our defense budget is so large (albeit, defense spending is one of the few constitutionally legitimate expenditures and it isn’t even close to being our largest expenditure).
      Also, what is the correct size for our military?

      1. Just a little bigger than the next biggest. Right now we spend more than the next seven combined.

        1. We pay more because we train our soldiers better then the Chinese and Russians, house them better and equip them better. The Russian and Chinese military is staffed almost entirely by conscripts who are basically slaves. Comparing us to China, Russia, Iran, India etc is an apples to oranges comparison.

        2. Also how many of the next seven are our allies who maintain a low military budget because their defensive scheme relies on us being as big and bad as we are?

        3. And how do we measure size, by troop numbers or by troop capabilities? If the latter, it is far more expensive then the former.

        4. “Just a little bigger than the next biggest. Right now we spend more than the next seven combined.”

          1) Defense is a proper role of government; we cannot do it individually.
          2) The comparison you quote is driven in some degree by those socialist paradises in Europe (and Japan) free-riding on the US military.
          3) We should end our wasted effort in the near- mid-east; it has accomplished nothing.
          4) We should quit NATO, close our bases in Europe and let the Euros pay for their own defense. As a side benefit, we would quit hearing about how ‘they’ can afford free whit once ‘they’ have to pay for their own defense.

          1. Good points also

          2. Quit NATO? No. Take out all our troops? Absolutely.

            For NATO, we can simply say: Call us when you need us. The same is true for South Korea as well.

      2. Also if you leave out mandatory outlays it is half of our discretionary spending so good place to start.

        1. Actually a better place to begin is all the discretionary spending that is not a constitutionally valid function of the government. And if we will cut the DoD budget, lets actually address the waste and fraud without impacting troop training, equipment and care. Unfortunately that is never what actually happens and by focusing on weapon systems and numbers the original poster misses the point.

          1. Well I would eliminate a whole list of departments anyway on principle if it was me. Most overseas deployments could be cut. Training and equipment has to be maintained. A smaller leaner highly effective force could be designed if you just gave the pentagon a smaller budget and told them this is what you have.

            I am not convinced that it cannot be done with half the budget. Could be reduced in phases. Cmon the pentagon will spend as much as they can if you give it to them.

            1. A smaller leaner force with a larger, better maintained reserve force, however, without a large reserve force to lean a force, no matter how well trained and equipped will be unable to deal with a sudden large conflict. As it is, our active military isn’t overly large, being only 0.4% of the population, total military including active reserve, national guard and individual ready reserve is only 0.7% of the population. The number of carriers and other surface vessels is at the lowest number since before World War 2. The size of the air fleet is little better. The number of active duty Army Divisions is also at the lowest number since before WW2.

              1. And at the start of WW2 our army was something like 19th in the world and woefully under equipped. That is not what I am proposing at all. You already pointed out the weaknesses of the other major contenders, Russia and the PLA yet nobody in their right mind is going to attack either one.

                And yet the Taliban defeated us.

                We are too big and too expensive that should be obvious.

                1. “…And yet the Taliban defeated us…”

                  No kidding?
                  Bullshit.

                2. The Taliban defeating us is debatable, however, the blame is not with our military (even if this is true) we routinely defeated the taliban in open conflict. It was the political leaders who had neither the resolve nor the foresight to implement a winning strategy. Just like in Vietnam.

          2. And you are right. Waste and fraud along with pointless wars which is the politicians fault. All those need to be addressed.

  30. Sanders is “centrist” to people who believe that the spectrum is “government owns nothing” on one side and “government owns everything” on the other side, since there is still a decent amount of property that he doesn’t want to seize.

    However, that’s like saying that sentencing someone to 50 years in prison for jaywalking is “centrist” because someone is out there advocating a 100-year sentence.

    True “centrism” is not a linear midpoint between the most extreme conceivable positions. It is the midpoint of public sentiment. Bernie Sanders is far left of that midpoint.

  31. Sanders seems to have worn out his welcome in Vermont, whose Governor has just endorsed Bill Weld’s bid to oust Trump as the Republican Presidiential candidate.

  32. The countries that Bernie claims he’s looking to emulate have a number of major policies in common:

    Once tried a “wealth tax” and repealed it when it turned out to be revenue-negative.
    tried a “Tobin tax” (taxing financial market transactions) and repealed it when it proved to be revenue-negative.
    Very low or no inheritance/estate tax.
    High tax burden on “middle class” incomes through very low thresholds for top-bracket 60-70% marginal income tax combined with 15-25% VAT/sales tax.
    School choice via something similar to a “voucher” system (in Denmark, the scools are mostly publicly funded but also mostly privately operated).
    Very restrictive immigration policies by comparison to current U.S. law.

    Imagine how fast any Bernie Sanders rally (or any other gathering of DSA membership) would empty out if anyone were to seriously propose enacting any one of these. I’m guessing the resulting negative air pressure might cave in the roof of a lot of larger buildings.

    1. They all have another commonality; they are largely free-riding on the US taxpayer’s support of the US military.
      Some years back, when France sent a force to the southern Sahara, they had to hitch a ride on US transports. I guess they didn’t have the gas money after supporting the month-long vacations.

  33. OK, I hereby nominate this the “Trueman’s Idiocy is Beyond Doubt” thread:

    mtrueman
    February.20.2020 at 10:47 am
    “…Instead dissenting voices have been marginalized and denied a place in the ‘national conversation.’ That won’t be possible if someone unacceptable like Sanders, Chomsky, or Peltier ever get a shot at the democratic (or republican) nomination.
    If Sanders got the nomination, he would gain a platform from which to preach Socialism, and Americans will be hearing it for the first time…”

    Trueman posted that up thread at that time-stamp. Truman claims that lefty views do not get a fair hearing in the US, and I’m left to wonder what comix truemen reads for his ‘education’. He certainly cannot read any newspaper from a major urban (D) center, nor catch any TV news other than FOX.
    Reality and trueman are but distant acquaintances…

  34. I’m not sure about the moral part. In fact I’m positive he’s completely immoral.

  35. Hi…
    I’m Elena gillbert.I seriously don’t understand how any one who considers themself a libertarian could even think about voting for Sanders.If you can’t vote Hornberger because you are afraid he won’t win anyway, at least vote someone who will reduce the governments burden on us rather than increase it.
    you can also read more…click here https://itnederland.zohosites.eu/blogs/post/hoe-windows-onvolledig-formaat-foutmelding-op-te-lossen

  36. Fuck “centrists”.

  37. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online…… Read more  

  38. Commonly trueman shows up long after the last comment to claim victory, since s/he was the last to post. Checking now, I see that his bullshit claim:

    mtrueman
    February.20.2020 at 10:47 am
    “…Instead dissenting voices have been marginalized and denied a place in the ‘national conversation.’ That won’t be possible if someone unacceptable like Sanders, Chomsky, or Peltier ever get a shot at the democratic (or republican) nomination.
    If Sanders got the nomination, he would gain a platform from which to preach Socialism, and Americans will be hearing it for the first time…”

    Has yet to be supported by the bullshitter trueman. The thought of offering support for a claim seems foreign for the bullshitter trueman. Stuff it up your ass so your head has some company.

  39. This is enoug for me to Earn money at home on laptop ,Just work on laptop 4 to 6 hour par day and Make 50 Dollar Easily This is very nyc for me and my family…..Check It Here…. Read More

  40. I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…..Check It Her…….Read MoRe

  41. What a load of horseshit
    Social Democracy is NOT Democratic Socialism
    (for our friends south of the border)
    The terms socialism, social democracy and democratic socialism are used interchangeably by many in the US, even in the media. My friend posted on this before, but with the elections I thought it might be good to highlight the difference.
    North Western European countries are largely based on social democratic models. This is to a great extent a capitalist system as it pertains to the economy, but one where inequality is minimized and where the elderly, children, etc. are cared for no matter their personal financial situation or that of their parents. Where things like universal healthcare, paid maternity leave and free or inexpensive education are a matter of course.
    A democratic socialist model is based on socialism in that the means of production are owned by the collective, but in a political democracy.

    1. “Where things like universal healthcare, paid maternity leave and free or inexpensive education are a matter of course.
      A democratic socialist model is based on socialism in that the means of production are owned by the collective, but in a political democracy.”

      You left out the part where that “free” shit isn’t free; it’s paid for by money taken at the point of a gun.
      And the part where that “free” shit is pretty much worth it; cheap and terrible.
      You got one thing right: your post is a pile of horsehsit.

  42. Making more income every month from $15,000 to $18,000 by just doing an easy job online from home. I have received $17594 last month from this online job by just doing this in my part time for maximum 2 to 3 hrs daily online. Get your hands on this job right now and start earning online by just follow details on this website……Read MoRe

  43. Making more income every month from $15,000 to $18,000 by just doing an easy job online from home. I have received $17594 last month from this online job by just doing this in my part time for maximum 2 to 3 hrs daily online. Get your hands on this job right now and start earning online by just follow details on this website……Read MoRe

  44. Bernie Sanders is one of my favorite politician. I wll try to publish some post on him on my blog rankerhub

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.