So are they getting a socialist or what?

I know MCE's answer will be "yes" regardless of who the actual candidate is, but I'm referring specifically to Bernie.


  • Seems to be in the lead.... The question is whether the DNC will play fucky-fuck with the nomination like last time, to prevent him from getting it.

    If they nominate him, they'll get a Communist. The rest are just Socialists. :P
  • The debates will be a riot.

    Mayor Pete as running mate?
  • edited February 12
    Dave wrote:

    "Seems to be in the lead.... The question is whether the DNC will play fucky-fuck with the nomination like last time, to prevent him from getting it.

    If they nominate him, they'll get a Communist. The rest are just Socialists. :P"

    I can't determine whether the mean Bernie voter is an analytically impaired and emotional well wisher who has been duped by the softening of Sanders' appearance with age, or people who really think that worker control of the means of production would improve their lives.

    Sanders has done a lot of work to reduce the amount of plagiarism of Marx in his public rhetoric. His old appearances in media are chilling to watch even now, but are worse when you consider that we were living under soviet threat at the time.

    Everything you need to know about the field of dems hopefuls is that not one of them has said "Bernie is a political tumor. We don't need to take him for a helicopter ride, but our party should take a break from worrying about protecting doctors who kill babies after birth, and come together to condemn the kind of oppression, poverty and death that stroll hand in hand with everything that asshole says."

  • If Bernie gets the nod, maybe Bloomberg will play spoiler and go 3rd party. That would be cool.
  • They could run as a team. A bolshevik and a billionaire; you would hear the anti-semites everywhere yelling "ah-HA!" together.

  • edited February 12
    I would rather see him run with Mayo Pete. "Team Bern-Butt 2020! Can you feel it?"
  • Well...

    Bernie is a communist.
    Biden is a corporatist.
    Bloomberg & Warren are fascists.
    Butterjugs and Gabbard are socialists.
    The rest are generic statists who don’t care what’s for dinner as long as they are at the table.
  • I read an article a while back noting Pete's biggest detractors aren't conservatives.

    They're LBQTGB fundies that think he isn't flamboyant enough.
  • I detect no limp wristed prancing or lispy dialect - Harry Reid
  • Here is the first openly gay candidate that doesn't wear dresses or talk like a fag - Joe Biden
  • I saw this POV elsewhere:

    Bloomberg will absolutely get the nomination. He wants Bernie and Warren to kill off Biden for him, and it’s working. Meanwhile he’s the only one who’s given any money to the DNC. $319,500 direct and another $480,500 divvied up to state party offices.

    He’s also direct funding state races in 40 states. Why? Because he’s buying superdelegates. When Bernie or Buttigeig fail to get 1990 delegates in the first round of voting, that frees up the 750 Superdelegates to vote for any candidate in round 2. Bloomberg is buying the nomination with a brokered convention, and he can do it.

    Bloomberg doesn’t care about voters. All he has to do is buy the DNC the way Hillary did in 2016. Then he controls the funding strings for all the down ballot races. That’s why he quietly created Hawkfish, which is a tech company that will serve as the data hub for his political operation. They also advertised to potential employees that they would be “the primary tech platform for the DNC”.

    When he has the DNC, he has the entire voter registry and more importantly, the top donor list. Those are the votes/endorsements he really wants. Speaking of endorsements, he’s racking them up left and right, especially from the pols he’s already bought. Oh and that little racism problem he has? Word is he’s working to close a deal for Obama’s endorsement.

    Everyone is running around freaking out over who’s polling higher and they don’t even remember that this is a DNC production. Votes are literally the least important part of the show.

    Bloomberg is already buying airtime on the local talk radio channel here in Atlanta which is historically conservative in nature.
  • edited February 13
    "Bloomberg doesn’t care about voters. All he has to do is buy the DNC the way Hillary did in 2016."

    How'd that work out for Hilary?
  • I stopped listening to conservative talk radio years ago. But too steady a diet of NPR left me looking for an antidote. So I started listening to this guy, Michael Berry. He is local to Houston, but now he’s kind of semi-national. I like him because he talks about local stuff and it’s not all politics. He’s... I dunno... Easy going.

    Anyway, he’s definitely conservative and a Trump guy (though reluctantly and admits it took him a looooong time to get comfortable with how he talks), but his show features a lot of Bloomberg ads. That lines up with Zed’s post.
  • MC Escher wrote,

    "Bloomberg doesn’t care about voters. All he has to do is buy the DNC the way Hillary did in 2016."

    How'd that work out for Hilary?"

    And let's recall that Hillary had a genuine constituency ranging from bitter middle aged women to casually informed voters who assumed she would operate the way her husband did.

    Mini-Mike, a name that will likely stick, is short. That's not a political asset.

    He is known for soda bans, gun bans, owning his own substantial media outlets, and being a billionaire. He simultaneously represents the intolerance of the present dem party and offends its class warfare sensibilities.

  • A racist billionaire, don't forget.

    Boasting about all the coal plants he shut down won't help his cause with middle America either.
  • Reading some of the tea leaves... President Trump either hates or is worried about Bloomberg as he is dedicating a lot of tweets to him. NPR, the DNC mouthpiece, also seems to be worried about him and is trying to take him down. NPR would typically bury any story about other racist Dems. I'd love to see him run as an independent.
  • I worry that the "Anti"-fa goons, who have already been pretty bold, will become even more bold if Bernie is the Dem's candidate.

    Even if it means a closer result in the general election, a Biden-Gabbard ticket wouldn't embolden the "Anti"-fas as much, and we'd get the joy of watching Joe Biden trying to keep his hands off Tulsi Gabbard, or the highlight of her beating him up a little.

    If you're secret service, you obviously let her slap Joe around a bit, or even break a finger or two. But when *do* you intervene? When she has Joe in a headlock and is threatening to snap his neck, thereby becoming the first VP to become the President in an act of lethal "self defense"? That's comedy.
  • I don't think there's a lot of love lost between Shorty McBloomers and Trump; but I don't think Trump is worried about him.
  • I would rather the ANTIFA people lose their minds and act out.

    1. They're mostly going to do that in Blue areas, which theoretically will annoy the "regulr" lefties.

    2. Better to have that confrontation NOW than 10 years from now.
  • That debate was enjoyable.

    The Commies really set their sites on Bloomberg.
  • edited February 20
    I enjoyed Sanders getting defensive about his country Dacha. Funniest term I've read about the event: HindenBlumberg.
  • edited February 20
    “The Commies really set their sites on Bloomberg.”

    Those are the Fascists.

    The ones who think they are democratic socialists are supporting the Commie.
  • Apologies. I get my extremist douche bags mixed up.

  • Yes, it can be hard to keep track.
  • Jonah Goldberg has a piece at NR about sanders and communism. He gets a lot right and a little wrong.

    "Senator Bernie Sanders didn’t like it, though.
    “Let’s talk about democratic socialism. Not Communism, Mr. Bloomberg,” Sanders said. “That’s a cheap shot. Let’s talk about — let’s talk about what goes on in countries like Denmark . . .”

    Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has a point. It’s unfair to use the label “Communist” to describe countries that adhere to social democracy (another way of saying democratic socialism, though there are ideological debates about whether the terms are interchangeable). That’s because the defining feature of social democracy (or democratic socialism) is democracy. Not only do social-democratic nations hold elections, they abide by them. Moreover, democracies worthy of the name adhere to things like constitutional rights and human rights — including property rights — and the rule of law."

    Goldberg’s contention that the defining feature of democratic socialism is “democracy” is dubious. “Democracy” is not a policy; it is a method for choosing policy. It has never been Sanders’ position, or the position of European social Democrats, that whatever the momentary majority wants is their position. On the contrary, they all militate for a result that is easily distinguishable from the existing majoritarian conclusion. The “democracy” in democratic socialism is the “democracy” of “the people” in a rhetorical sense, “the people” being the term used to distinguish foreigners, financiers, capitalists, elites, etc. from an inchoately popular and sometimes bloody minded justice.

    Clearly, the defining feature of democratic socialism is socialism. Why would Goldberg avoid that conclusion? Leonid Brezhnev and German social Democrats in the 1970s may not have agreed on the details of the optimal socialist policy, but their primary disagreement was over whether the Politburo or the German social Democratic Party should guide implementation of socialist policy.

    In either case, we see a policy that calls for a monopoly of state power. Of course, Sanders calls for federalization of healthcare with no private option; a choice to do business with whomever one wishes is the polar opposite of socialism. Even with a private option, nationalized healthcare insurance is akin to the menshevics keeping the czar under guard rather than murdering him; it is a merely transitional phase.

    One sees the allergy to personal choice and voluntary association in the socialist defense of government monopoly schools. In that case, voluntary association in an economically meaningful way is represented as an evil precisely because it threatens the state monopoly.

    I find problematic Goldberg’s sense that socialism is not an idea independent of the means by which it is imposed, and that some of those means are benign.

    Perhaps as bad, Goldberg states that “democracies worthy of the name adhere to things like constitutional rights and human rights – including property rights – and the rule of law.” Of course, that isn’t really true at all. Hugo Chavez was arguably the legally elected big cheese in Venezuela, at least the first time. Germany’s mid century unpleasantness involved electoral successes. The UK egregiously violated the property interests of landowners with confiscatory taxation in their postwar romance with socialism. Democracy is fundamentally at odds with the idea of constitutional rights and the rule of law. More than one court has inscribed above its bench “government of laws, not men”. Democracy is literally a government of men poised to undermine law.

    That a socialist seems to be at the precipice of a nomination by the American democrat party is an indictment of that party. Goldberg’s effort seems to be to present democratic socialism as something less malignant than the history of socialism would suggest. To get there, he uses the procedural adjective to mitigate the horror of the noun, then incorrectly defines the adjective.

    Democratic socialism is built on some of the worst two ideas of the last several centuries.
  • edited February 21
    1. Sanders really only begin calling himself a democratic socialist last year. prior to that he just called himself a socialist.

    2. Regardless of what they call it; socialism, fascism, communism… It’s all Marxism.
    The only distinction of merit between Marxism and capitalism is the existence of private property. It’s like being pregnant; you either are or you are not.

    3. I still say that Sanders is going to get the nomination and I think much of the rest of the country is reluctantly coming around to that viewpoint. That being said, what I find interesting here is that public sentiment seems to be most analogous to 1992. I voted for Ross Perot even though I knew he wasn’t actually in the race anymore and that the chances of him actually gaining a plurality of the vote were slim to none. I didn’t care because like many of the others who voted for Perot anyway, I wanted to make a point. I wanted him to have a good showing so that the GOP would understand that a sizable portion of their base was not content to merely vote for whatever option they gave us simply because the GOP sucks a little less than the Democrat party.

    If Bernie somehow does not get the Democrat nomination but he’s on the ballot anyway, I think he will probably get around 20% of the vote, just like Perot did.
  • I cannot wait for the DNC to make the error of fucking him out of the nomination and letting him run independent.

    Can't. Wait.
  • The other error they can make is to let him run as their nominee. “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." They saw a political margin in characterizing RWR as a warmonger to blame for continuing "tension" with communists. Having spent more than the entire adult life of any of us dismissively chuckling at the idea that socialism is a problem, they haven't anywhere to go with a different message.

    Sanders inside the tent is a problem for dems. Sanders outside the tent is a problem for dems. Not to get all Vince Foster-ish, but if I were Sanders, I'd get a food taster. Michael Moore would do it for free.
  • I think they would rather get rid of him entirely, as opposed to just forcing someone else in.
    So if he’s about to get the nomination I think they let it play out that way because in the absence of a black swan event he’s going to lose and he would be too old to run again in 2024. He’s arguably too old and too unhealthy even now but that doesn’t seem to be a factor at the moment.

    Plus, I don’t think they have the balls to screw him out of the nomination a second time.
  • The problem with so-called democratic socialism, as I see it, is the same problem with regular ol' socialism. The conceit of the former indicates a respect and adherence to popular representation. However, the only way socialism can actually work is when society has a common set of values and goals and they all agree on the best way to achieve them. That's why it sorta-kinda works in the Scans because those people all look, think, and act alike. They're very homogeneous.

    In a society where we're told that our "diversity is our strength" (a notion I actually believe), socialism is an auto-fail because you're not going to get the PR mother of 4 in NY to agree with the older male farmer in Iowa, or even, eventually, the black transvestite in Atlanta. Everyone across the country has their own agendas, needs, preferences, thoughts and ideas. Collective adherence to a common set of behaviors just ain't gonna happen. Not like in Denmark or Sweden. The only way that socialism "works" (note the scare quotes) in highly diverse nations is through tyranny; the state forcing what it thinks is best (driven by the elites in power) on the populace.

    Democratic socialism is, at best, absurd. At worst (and the most likely truth) is that its a cynically deceptive descriptor for the likes of Bernie to gain power.

    And then Communism.
Sign In or Register to comment.