The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[teachercd]

Did...did someone really say "socialist roads"

 

Amazing! 

 

 

What does it even matter though?  Trump is going to impeached and out.  This is going to be a landslide win for the Democrats and major change will happen.

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, Frott Scost said:

 

And Im asking, what specific policies is Sanders proposing that would qualify as socialism? Nobody can ever seem to answer that question. Has he proposed the govt taking over Nike and Adidas? Youre kind of backed into a corner now because youve already conceded that if roads, military, libraries, 911 etc is not socialism than Sanders specific policy proposals cannot be socialism either. 

 

My opposition to some of his policies is not because they're "socialist" - There are MANY reasons to be opposed to many of his policies than trying to label them as socialism.

 

All I've said is that socialism and communism should carry the same disdain that nazism does, and Bernie's willingness to label himself as socialist is alarming given the history of socialism.

[ActualCornHusker]

2 minutes ago, funhusker said:

No one here wants to follow the models of China, NK, Cuba, etc.

 

Some members want to follow the models of Sweden, Canada, Germany, etc.  Which where clearly called "not socialist" nations in the article.

 

So it sounds like people are wasting a lot of time focusing on a "word" rather than an "idea"....

 

I agree, too much attention has been put on the word socialism itself. 

[Nebfanatic]

5 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

*sigh*

 

How about a left leaning source? 

Another opinion. Thats fine, I'm not for communistic socialism. If we don't want to call what all of our other developed counterparts do with their economic system socialism that is A ok with me. But if thats the case then we can no longer call the policies they engage in such as free college, universal healthcare, UBI, progressive taxation, socialism either.

[funhusker]

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

My opposition to some of his policies is not because they're "socialist" - There are MANY reasons to be opposed to many of his policies than trying to label them as socialism.

 

All I've said is that socialism and communism should carry the same disdain that nazism does, and Bernie's willingness to label himself as socialist is alarming given the history of socialism.

I can appreciate this.  The Politico article you posted does a good job of explaining that stance.

 

[ActualCornHusker]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

Another opinion. Thats fine, I'm not for communistic socialism. If we don't want to call what all of our other developed counterparts do with their economic system socialism that is A ok with me. But if thats the case then we can no longer call the policies they engage in such as free college, universal healthcare, UBI, progressive taxation, socialism either.

 

I agree. I never called those specific things "socialism." - was just responding to Frott Scost on Bernie

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I agree, too much attention has been put on the word socialism itself. 

Freaks from both sides LOVE it, that's why!

[Danny Bateman]

I was not the one who cited Bernie's past beliefs and recent changes. If anything that to me sounds more like something Frott would say to point out the relative stability of Bernie's policy views over time - as a good thing.

 

I've got a bone to pick with both sides here re: this discussion though.

 

I don't know that Maduro starving his own citizens has a lot to do with socialism, per se. It has a lot to do with him being a corrupt authoritarian happy to kill his own countrymen while maintaining power and wealth with an iron fist.

 

But that very authoritarian rule of a socialist country makes corruption more likely, IMO. And while I don't think socialism inevitably results in atrocities, I think actual big, socialist policy undertakings in this country will be an incredibly heavy lift, making them somewhat pie in the sky. That's not to say inherently bad by any means, but difficult to achieve.

[Ratt Mhule]

Just now, ActualCornHusker said:

 

My opposition to some of his policies is not because they're "socialist" - There are MANY reasons to be opposed to many of his policies than trying to label them as socialism.

 

All I've said is that socialism and communism should carry the same disdain that nazism does, and Bernie's willingness to label himself as socialist is alarming given the history of socialism.

And thats fine. You sound like a libertarian so I can understand not supporting his policies. But fox news, GOP and conservatives smear him as wanting to bring Venezuelan type socialism to the US when his policy proposals do not back that up one bit. Its all about fear mongering. 

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

All I've said is that socialism and communism should carry the same disdain that nazism does, and Bernie's willingness to label himself as socialist is alarming given the history of socialism.

 

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I agree, too much attention has been put on the word socialism itself. 

 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Danny Bateman said:

I was not the one who cited Bernie's past beliefs and recent changes. If anything that to me sounds more like something Frott would say to point out the relative stability of Bernie's policy views over time - as a good thing.

 

I've got a bone to pick with both sides here re: this discussion though.

 

I don't know that Maduro starving his own citizens has a lot to do with socialism, per se. It has a lot to do with him being a corrupt authoritarian happy to kill his own countrymen while maintaining power and wealth with an iron fist.

 

But that very authoritarian rule of a socialist country makes corruption more likely, IMO. And while I don't think socialism inevitably results in atrocities, I think actual big, socialist policy undertakings in this country will be an incredibly heavy lift, making them somewhat pie in the sky. That's not to say inherently bad by any means, but difficult to achieve.

This is such a good post and will sadly be ignored by many.

 

It really is simple.  All government forms are set up with the best intentions.  But most don't seem to end up being all that great.

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, Danny Bateman said:

I was not the one who cited Bernie's past beliefs and recent changes. If anything that to me sounds more like something Frott would say to point out the relative stability of Bernie's policy views over time - as a good thing.

 

I've got a bone to pick with both sides here re: this discussion though.

 

I don't know that Maduro starving his own citizens has a lot to do with socialism, per se. It has a lot to do with him being a corrupt authoritarian happy to kill his own countrymen while maintaining power and wealth with an iron fist.

 

But that very authoritarian rule of a socialist country makes corruption more likely, IMO. And while I don't think socialism inevitably results in atrocities, I think actual big, socialist policy undertakings in this country will be an incredibly heavy lift, making them somewhat pie in the sky. That's not to say inherently bad by any means, but difficult to achieve.

 

That last paragraph hit the nail on the head of my point. Thank you.

 

1 minute ago, Frott Scost said:

And thats fine. You sound like a libertarian so I can understand not supporting his policies. But fox news, GOP and conservatives smear him as wanting to bring Venezuelan type socialism to the US when his policy proposals do not back that up one bit. Its all about fear mongering. 

 

You got it. And as a libertarian minded person, I tend to disagree more with Republicans on social policy but disagree with Democrats mainly on fiscal policy - so with this forum admittedly having a lot of Democrats, most of the disagreements are on fiscal policy, thereby prompting @knapplc to call me far-right  the meaning of which has been distorted anyways...

 

And yes, I'd agree it's fear mongering to label public services as socialism - which is odd because in the next breath, many Republicans will defend the VA and Social Security. It's funny to watch.

[Ratt Mhule]

18 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

That last paragraph hit the nail on the head of my point. Thank you.

 

 

You got it. And as a libertarian minded person, I tend to disagree more with Republicans on social policy but disagree with Democrats mainly on fiscal policy - so with this forum admittedly having a lot of Democrats, most of the disagreements are on fiscal policy, thereby prompting @knapplc to call me far-right  the meaning of which has been distorted anyways...

 

And yes, I'd agree it's fear mongering to label public services as socialism - which is odd because in the next breath, many Republicans will defend the VA and Social Security. It's funny to watch.

And I dont agree with Bernie on everything. I have called him out on things on this board. I dont like how he calls himself a democratic socialist, Id wish he call himself a social democrat. Some of his framing on issues suck although its gotten much better since 2016 with the new speech writer and some of his policies I dont really like too much. 
 

For me, my number one issue is healthcare. I dont think there should be a profit motive when it comes to people being sick. Healthcare is not like buying a phone. People will pay whatever they have to in order to stay alive so these profit driven companies can literally charge whatever they want and people would pay in order to live. Thats wrong. Working in the field, Ive seen a 40 year old with 3 young kids be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and be denied treatment by his insurance company. Now he has to decide whether to fight and financially ruin his family or die. Thats a cruel and messed up system. 
 

I think Bernie is the only politician that will fight for MFA tooth and nail. I dont think Warren would. The others want to keep profit driven insurance companies in power so they are irrelevant to me. Now @Danny Bateman brings up a good point. Can it even be passed? The answer is most likely not but he will fight for it and I can live with that. Cant say the same for the other candidates who are already conceding their positions from the start in order to keep power for insurance and drug companies. 

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Is this a version of "That's not real socialism"?... 

 

You're the one that started playing the, "that's not real socialism" game first by trying to excuse canada/scandinavia/etc. as exempt from your own argument. So if you're going to call someone else out on a "no true scotsman" fallacy at least admit you're doing the same thing.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Fascism is MANDATORY for socialism/communism to be implemented. 

 

It is not. Socialism and communism are theories in which everything is publicly owned by the people. If you elect enough individuals without checks and balances in place, you risk heirarchy becoming calcified and then fascism can leverage the ideals into their own tyranny, but it is not an inherent element to the nature of either political theory whatsoever.

 

 

1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Fascism is characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

 

Socialism/communism aren't characterized by any single thing that you just mentioned. Did you know there is even such thing as anarcho-communism? There is a philosophy of libertarian socialism (also known as anarchist socialism) as well. 

 

 

37 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

All I've said is that socialism and communism should carry the same disdain that nazism does

 

Everyone is aware that is what you have said. That's why we're still talking about it, because a lot of people can't believe you'd have such a silly opinion

 

 

35 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I agree, too much attention has been put on the word socialism itself. 

 

Hmmm, weird, coming from the guy who said that the word socialism should make people feel the same as Nazis.

 

 

27 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

so with this forum admittedly having a lot of Democrats

 

Where was that admitted? Who are the Democrats in here? 

[ActualCornHusker]

2 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

And I dont agree with Bernie on everything. I have called him out on things on this board. I dont like how he calls himself a democratic socialist, Id wish he call himself a social democrat. Some of his framing on issues suck although its gotten much better since 2016 with the new speech writer and some of his policies I dont really like too much. 
 

For me, my number one issue is healthcare. I dont think there should be a profit motive when it comes to people being sick. Healthcare is not like buying a phone. People will pay whatever they have to in order to stay alive so these profit driven companies can literally charge whatever they want and people would pay in order to live. Thats wrong. Working in the field, Ive seen a 40 year old with 3 young kids be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and be denied treatment by his insurance company. Now he has to decide whether to fight and financially ruin his family or die. Thats a cruel and messed up system. 
 

I think Bernie is the only politician that will fight for MFA tooth and nail. I dont think Warren would. The others want to keep profit driven insurance companies in power so they are irrelevant to me. Now @Danny Bateman brings up a good point. Can it even be passed? The answer is most likely not but he will fight for it and I can live with that. Cant say the same for the other candidates who are already conceding their positions from the start in order to keep power for insurance and drug companies. 

 

Healthcare is a complicated deal for sure, and it's definitely a major problem that medical bills (I'm pretty sure) are the leading cause of bankruptcies in the US. A lot of those problems could be solved without resorting to universal healthcare, but it just looks like an issue that people are getting behind more and more, and it's probably going to happen eventually. So here would be my thoughts on the matter, and I'd love a quality discussion on it:

1) There's no reason to do away completely with private insurance like Bernie & Warren are advocating. There's no reason to not allow someone to purchase private insurance if they choose to do so, even if it's supplemental.

2) The biggest contention I have with universal healthcare is that the government as a general rule sucks at everything, and on top of it being bureaucratic, inefficient, and incompetent, it's also very subject to abuse, fraud, and corruption. 

3) Going along the same lines, giving government control of a good or service also gives the government power to ration that good or service. Reviews from almost every country with universal healthcare are that it results in slow service and long wait times. Additionally, the government would have the power to approve or deny what doctors, clinics, etc that people are allowed to go to. How would the process of approval work? And would clinics that don't get approved be shut down, or would they be able to operate privately and outside the public health sector? Would the universal healthcare also cover alternative methods of treatment, or would they limit it only to the pharmaceuticals that are approved by congress (which access undoubtedly would be bought and paid for)

4) One thing that proponents of universal healthcare either don't understand or intentionally ignore is that the incentive of profit in healthcare results in world-leading investments in R&D for new drugs, procedures, and technologies. How would universal healthcare not severely slow down the development of newer medical goods and services?

 

Those are just a few major sticking points, and there's complexity in healthcare far beyond what we're all aware of as well. And I haven't even asked yet how the government would collect enough taxes to pay for everyone without being in a deficit... Do people really trust politicians and bureaucrats to handle all this effectively?