There were some nice moments in last night's SOTU address, but for me this was the greatest highlight of all: The response of Democrats and one of their former presidential candidates was quite telling: Watch Bernie Sanders’ Red, Frowning Face as Trump Slams Socialism During SOTU Sanders is an avowed democratic socialist. Joe Setyon|Feb. 5, 2019 11:00 pm https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/05/watch-bernie-sanders-red-frowning-face-a I find it appalling that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and all her fellow Democrats didn't stand and applaud the President's following statement: "Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence—not government coercion, domination, and control. WE ARE BORN FREE, AND WE WILL STAY FREE. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country." Amen, Mr. President. Democrats and the "progressives" who support them have assured us over and over again that they are not socialists, but when the President condemned it and declared America will never be a socialist country they sat in their seats and snarled. In case anyone has forgotten, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, but after all this time it appears that Democrats haven't learned a thing. They insist on ignoring and repeating History's mistakes. SOTU addresses are usually pretty boring and worthless political affairs, but for a brief moment last night's address cast a revealing light on where we are in this country.
To be fair, let's not single-out Bernie Sanders. He wasn't the only Democrat who was displeased with the President's remark:
I noticed that the Democrats side of the aile weren't happy campers when President Trump said that America would not become a socialist country. They remained seated and didn't applaud. The Democratic party has moved so far to the left they have become the party of socialism.
When Barrack Obama was running for President the GOP kept touting that because of the recession Obama going to nationalize the corporations and socialize the economy. Instead corporations and the stock market have enjoy over 100 months of slow steady growth leading us to record numbers of today. How many more times do Republicans get to be dead wrong on this issue before we get to tell them they are clueless?
That was nothing short of remarkable. They really have. At this point Democrats should merge with the Socialist Party USA and be done with it.
How many more socialists do Dems have to elect and run for president before you admit the obvious? BTW, you might want to tell Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown and the rest of the Democrats who want to abolish private health insurance to tone it down because they're screwing up your narrative...
One step at a time. It's interesting you mention that because it reminds me of an article published by a "progressive" in the CPUSA applauding a socialist's run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016: A wonderful development in many ways! The socialists in the Democratic party won't have to call themselves "progressives" anymore, and when a capitalist running dog in the White House declares "American will never be a socialist country" during a SOTU address the socialists in the Democratic Party won't need to get up and applaud. Finally, they can come out of the closet...
Internationalist Socialist, Marxist and anarchist have been hiding behind the progressive label for more than a few decades now. Slowly they are revealing who they really are.
That was so damned funny. The expressions on the red faces of Sanders, AOC and all the other progs were priceless. It was even better than watching Blinky Pelosi play with her coloring book all night...
I had always thought that the constitution prevents the government from taking control of the means of production within the state? And isn't that the guiding principle of socialism? Course social democrats are a different kettle of fish, everywhere except in America, it seems. But I am not surprised at the remarkable semantic drift of politically descriptive words in US identity politics.
We thought the individual mandate was unconstitutional but then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court violated the Constitution and declared an exaction that was defined as a penalty into a tax. We also thought it was unconstitutional for our property to be seized by the government and then handed over to another private party but then the Supreme Court decided to allow that, too. I could go on and on but I think you can see the pattern developing here...
Yeah, I mean your constitutional legal expertise exceeds that of SCOTUS. Seems your side argued precisely that in court and LOST the legal argument. But don't let that get in the way. You thought "eminent domain" is unconstitutional? Even if its been common law in america since colonial days? Bit late to that party, aren't you? Perhaps you should re-read the constitution, particularly the fifth amendment.
Obama never campaigned to do so and it was the far right fringe that said he would AOC and Sanders have both campaigned on doing so so it isn't speculation that they would they came out and said they would
Would you expect Millionaires and Billionaires to be cheering for the onset of socialism????I DON"T THINK SO!!!
There was no reason to stand and applaud. Socialism and liberty are not incompatible. We here in the USA know it, too. We have a mixed economy. Socialism is a system of economy, not government, just like capitalism. It is possible to live under an authoritarian capitalist society, and they do exist. I prefer a mixed economy, which is basically what we have in the US. Socialism is very much alive and well in the US, so there’s no reason to applaud a false statement, unless you afraid not doing so might hurt your image with your constituents.
millionaires maybe not but billionaires will be immune they have the resources and connections to shield them selves from the affects of socialism why do you think all these billionaires donate to democrats ? so to shield them selves from the democrats socialist agenda they don't have to donate to republicans they don't fear their agenda so no protection needed
Capitalism has betrayed America by allowing the richest 2% of our families gain ownership & control over 98% of our nation's wealth. That's a national disgrace. America was supposed to be the place where anyone with a dream could make that dream become reality. But that's not possible in a country where 2% of our people control everything, and oppose anyone new becoming a competitor. American capitalism has failed us, and needs fixing. Truth is, neither capitalism or socialism alone can answer the problem. Capitalism alone is too easily focused on the wealthy who run it at the expense of everyone else. That's what we currently have. Socialism alone has often proven itself incapable of the levels of production necessary to include everyone. But the answer is simple. We need a new system of capitalism & socialism combined into one, focused, functional team capable of both producing new wealth & sharing it more generally with the majority of the nation's citizens in a far more balanced way. That would indeed make America "great again."
First of all, my position is no different than the ones four Supreme Court justices took when they condemned Justice Roberts for his arbitrary and unconstitutional act of "judicial tax writing". Don't let the fact that Supreme Court justices are not empowered to write/rewrite laws and declare an exaction a tax - our Constitution reserves those powers to the legislature and House and Representatives - get in your way. Where did I suggest that eminent domain is unconstitutional? Perhaps you should read the Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The property seized from the citizens of New London was handed over to a private developer, not the government. As Justice O'Connor correctly pointed out, the ruling eliminated "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Where you came up with the idea that this has "been common law in america since colonial days" is a mystery to me and probably anyone else who is reading this. My point and the bottom line here is that our government, including the courts, does not always uphold the Constitution.
wealth isn't finite its created one having more doesn't cause another to have less so it doesn't make a dam what the top 2% has if your goal is to bring people out of poverty teach them how to create their own wealth not steal from the top to give to the bottom because doing just that creates a dependent class which then is controlled by the government but thats liberal goal isn't it? more and more government dependency and control which always leads to tyranny
Socialism has no redeeming value in the world. It is great news that President Trump has firmly declared that America will never become a socialist country.