Who is the best candidate for Democrats?

I agree. She the only one on their side I would vote for if I were Democrat, although I disagree with several things she believes in. But she is smart enough. To bad they won't give her a chance

 

I justified my position rather well, it is most certainly "well reasoned", and I expressed it in a fair amount of detail. When I or anyone else do not agree with you, you automatically jump to attack mode. This forum is for an exchange of ideas. You most certainly do not have the market cornered on "facts and logic", and you know darned well what constitutes mainstream thought. I am expressing essentially the precise pragmatic position being put forth by the DNC, and yet you are acting as if I am the one espousing some bizarre interpretation of the situation at hand. There is absolutely nothing that I have said that has been aggressive or disrespectful, yet every ounce of your responses have been condescending and aggressive. You truly need to learn to chill out, and accept the reality that there are legitimate opinions that differ from your own. You have apparently been hanging around this place for too long. You have become something that I am sure you truly do not intend to be, and have yet to realize that reality.

We have both expressed our as of now unprovable opinions. There is nothing left to say. There is no reason for the multiple replies. Yet you persist with this endless petty bickering regardless, and you do it in almost every conversation. You need to learn how to end a conversation with dignity... Yeesh! Not every exchange needs to be bloodsport.

 

I agree with you. She checks all the progressive boxes, but she is genuine, independent, and she is right about the wars. The other thing I like about her is that she is not running on her gender or her ethnicity, but on the issues. And she constantly talks about all of us being one American people. "There are no 'deplorables', she says. I like that about her.

She endorsed Bernie in 2016, so if he gets the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if he picked her as a running mate.

 

The dems should dig up McGovern's corpse to run.....no wait they have Bernie...same,same......

 

Venezuela has a Federal Presidential Republic form of Government. The only problem with Venezuela, is that they decided to nationalize their resources(oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold), and use the money to benefit its own people(poverty, housing, jobs, education, and healthcare), pay off its loans(it did), and to not give its resources away to Exxon, BP, and to other foreign countries. The country and its people were prospering. Until American lied about their elections, demonized their government, and started coups and crippling sanctions. American interests, are only Corporate interests. NO country has ever benefitted from American interventionism, since WWII.

The only thing mindless about most voters, is how quickly they will accept meaningless unsupported partisan talking points. And, how proud they are, in keeping our country divided, and our people suffering and distracted. Both Democrats and Republicans share many overlapping views. There are NO completely opposing ideologies between either. Do you really think that Democrats can't have similar views as Republicans, on Abortion Rights, Same Sex Marriages, Pornography, Gun Control, the Constitution, money in politics, voting and civil rights abuses, immigration policies, healthcare policies, prison and drug reforms, etc.? People who think partisan, are simply part of the problem. Not the solution.

The DNC took care of Bernie easily in 2016. However, this time they had to deal with someone, who was more dangerous than Bernie. Someone, who was so dangerous and over-qualified, that they needed to use the full weight of their Corporate Media, to lie, attack, insinuate, infer guilt,, smear, falsely accuse, demean, "red bait", change rules, undermine, or demonize her personally and her campaign. These smear attacks came on the very first day of her campaign, and have not ceased. The DNC knew that her message of money out of politics, and the revolving door, would end their big donor contributions. It would also be the end the of the MIC, and would improve the lives of "we the people". Not just the privileged wannabes. Bernie is an old progressive, with very little foreign policy experience. But Tulsi is a young, genuine, intelligent speaker of the truth, that has walked the talk, in foreign, military, domestic, progressive AND political affairs. She would have been everything we could have ever hoped, in being our the first female president. She was so much in a class of her own, that when she spoke, others either quit, or just shut up to avoid being embarrassed.

All political parties know, that if you tell the gullible and mindless public, even the most obvious of lies, that if you tell it long enough, and often enough, that it will eventually become the truth. This is basic Psych 101(the validity effect, or the illusory truth effect). The majority of people are just politically lazy, and care more about their political image, than they do about having an informed opinion. Their truth will always be based on their own confirmation bias, NOT on any facts in evidence. Again, they are just part of the problem

Firstly, by definition, there has NEVER been any true Communist countries in the world. And, there never will be. Secondly, our Federal Government clearly does not ban political dissent, promote a One-Party governmental system, abolish the Elitist and Bourgeoisie class, control all means of productions, or control private ownership of businesses or properties(without due process). Remember the next step from Capitalism is Socialism. Our Constitution, and Government have supported and practiced variations of Socialism(workers make contributions for the common good, for all to share in the benefits) for decades(workers compensations, emergency services, healthcare, social security, public schools, etc.). Does anyone here think that an employer hires workers just to share his wealth, or to improve the lives of his workers? Or, do you think they hire workers to make more wealth? You are just spreading more disinformation, to the ignorant, and the politically lazy. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp

Your opinions are only in line with your cognitive bias, and the mainstream's "manufactured" version of the truth. The truth is, that Corporate America pays actors from two major acting agencies(most well-known celebrities belong to) to deliver the message they want the public to believe. If they want you to believe that Socialism is bad, just present the selected half-truth version, and the public will believe it. If only people would stop listening to actors and personalities, and start doing their own research, we wouldn't have people spewing disinformation about what Socialism and Communism really are. Most people don't have a clue what Socialism is. The only thing they think they know, is that it is a bad thing. They haven't a clue, that without some version of socialistic practices in America, we would be tripping over our dead in the streets.

What is the difference between a "capitalist democrat", and a "corporate democrat"? Changing the name doesn't change the meaning. Besides Bernie and Tulsi, the rest are ALL Corporate Centrist Democrats(especially Buttigieg). So, plenty to choose from. Bernie, an Autocrat? That would be like calling the late Mr. rogers a Communist. Besides, we are witnessing what a true mindless authoritarian autocrat is doing NOW. If not for the protections in our Constitution, we would now be knee-deep in cow dung.

There are only two PROVEN progressives running for President. Only a progressive can stand up to Corporate America, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, the MIC, Wall Street, the DNC, and all the arm-chair war-mongers. The only group that the DNC, and their democratic controlled media, will never nominate, are progressives. Only progressives can make the decisive sea-changes needed, to protect our country, end all wars, lift crippling sanctions, end our arms deal with the worst of all terrorist countries, end the nuclear cold war, re-establish nuclear treaties, stay out of the domestic affairs of foreign countries, and use the resources to address our own domestic issues. We lost our best hope of any of that happening. Bernie is our NEXT best hope. All the rest, as proven in the last 70+ years, will just go along, to get along. They will only LOOK and PLAY the role of a president. But, they will never BE a president. Like Tulsi could have been. I didn't hear either side complaining about the DNC's blatant interference in our democratic nomination process. There is a word that describes people who keep making the same mistakes, and still expect a different outcome.

 

Can it, T E. Any Dem can stand up to Donald.

 

What scares me more, is a younger generation that has grown up into a society, that is spoon-fed reality, by paid actors and personalities. A new generation that can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy, and what is theatre and what is not. A new generation of apathetic, indifferent, lazy individuals, that will believe what they are being told without question. A new generation of Corporate talking-heads, parroting the same talking points and platitudes, as the generation before them. This is the de-evolution of our abilities to reason, and to use our basic cognitive logic. This only guarantees that changes we need, will never occur.

My greatest fear, is that the new generation, will eventually become so dumbed-down and cynical, that they will not be able to care anymore. Like most of the current generation. How could anyone believe, that any Billionaire, could possibly identify with, or understand the needs of the poor? And Trump is doing exactly what is expected. Nothing for the poor, but more lying, more promising, and more excuses.

My only hope is that a progressive gets elected, to show the new generation, that it is the people that control the Government. It is the people that elect the politicians to represent their best interests. It is the people, whose rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, must be protected by the people that they elect. NOT the governments of other countries, or the manufactured excuses. It's very simple. If our representative aren't going to help us, then vote them out of office. I don't care what party they belong to. Do the job, or get lost.

What exactly are these indisputable facts, that makes Trump the best candidate for the "Dems". Is it his over 8,000 lies, or his shutting down the government? Is it him being a world-class embarrassment? Is it him being a bigot, a racists, a corporatist, a misogynist, or a xenophobe? So, please, what are these facts?

 

Who is the best candidate for Democrats?

Gabbard. But by a stroke of luck we might get Sanders.

 

The difference between socialism and communism is that socialist are smart enough to figure out that any government big enough and intrusive enough to make a halfway decent stab at from each according to his means to each according to his needs isn't going anywhere of it's own volition. Socialism always descends into government by petty minded increasingly incompetent control freaks who become, over time, worried about little more than hanging onto their perks and expanding upon those perks.

 

Out of everything I said, THIS was your only concern? Hillary didn't stand up to Trumps bullying, with his "crooked Hillary" labels and insults. Do you think that "sleepy Joe, howdy doody, mini Mike, Goofy Warren, Pocahontas, crazy Sanders, will NOT be the labels he will use for those democrats standing up against him? What was his nickname for Tulsi, "respect". So, if you want a guaranteed loss in the 2020 election, then put any old corporate centrist, up against a bullying chronic narcissist. You will lose every time. His personality alone, would make them appear weak, pompous, and irrelevant. As a walking contradiction, he would draw even more popular appeal. Only those with an even more self-assured confident personality, can stand up to Trump. Trump is not worried about how he looks, or what he might say. But I guarantee that many corporate democrats certainly are. Tulsi and Bernie, are the only two, that are not afraid to take off the gloves, and expose Trump as the insecure rich daddy's boy, who must surround himself with "yes men" to be secure. The rest are limited by their own level of civility and self-image. Bernie is old school, and Tulsi is the best of the new school. Both will use the truth to bury and embarrass Trump. And, his ego. Both will go on the offence, while the others will just play defence(based on their records).

My only hope, is that Bernie offers Tulsi a position on his cabinet. We will then have a progressive expert in domestic policy, and a progressive expert in foreign policy, within the same administration. With these two progressives, America will truly have its best chance of a brighter future.

In the future, CAN the attitude. I am far too old in the tooth for this nonsense. Any Democrat CAN'T stand up against Trump. What do you think the odds would be with Amy vs.Trump? If you think its Amy, then, boy, do I have a bridge to sell you.

 

T E, 'that' was the only thing you said that was concerning; the rest was your, like, opinion, man.

Every Dem can and will stand up to Trump with no problem.

You are not a seer, guide, or prophet on what is going to happen in November.

Take off your blinders, old man (I am old, too ) and let this play out. Have faith in the younger generations ~ it's their world.

 

I love how you condescendingly presume to know the genesis of MY thought process, ESPECIALLY when I have said almost nothing on the concept of Socialism (or socialistic practices), other than that it is a toxic word to the electorate. Is jumping to conclusions based on literally nothing how you achieve your self labeled enlightenment? Apparently, in your mind, only you know the true path. LOL....Bless your little heart. You really think that you are something. Too bad it does not shine through to the rest of the world.

 

No, I did not jump to any conclusions about my tag. I just made it up, while watching a kung fu movie. "Truly Enlightened", is just a tag, like "swap thing", "marine1", "doombug", etc. My wife said I should change the name, because she thought people might be threatened or offended. I said, people are smarter than that. They would be more interested in my words, not in a silly tag. Apparently, I was wrong. If I changed it to "NOT truly enlightened", would that make a difference for you?

I certainly DO know a lot about thought processing. But I definitely do not presume to know yours. Since it is only out of ignorance, that the word, "Socialism" is toxic, what are you doing to educate the electorate about Socialism, and the examples of how it is practiced in a Democratic Republican Government? Maybe you could enlighten those who think "Socialism bad. Bernie and Tulsi love Socialism. Therefore Bernie and Tulsi bad,". Do you explain how it can benefit the electorate? Maybe tell the electorate that there are NO Communist countries, therefore, no Communism. And there never has been, by definition. So "Communist Russia", LIES. "Communist China and N. Korea", also LIES. Remember the spreading Communist threat in the 60's, which led to the needless death of 58,000 US military in Viet Nam. All LIES. Now, the new vogue is Terrorism.

Regarding your comments on Socialism,

Clearly your "opinions are in line with the same mainstream media propaganda. Hence the same talking points. The poster is correct. You should also explain why all socialist practices are bad(toxic)? Or, maybe list how society has benefited from some quasi-socialistic programs? You might also want to explain how socialism arose out of the greed and abuses of Capitalism? Or, you can just keep parroting more of the mainstream's incomplete version, and take pride in disseminating more of their biased rhetoric.

Are you condescendingly presuming to know the genesis of the poster's thought process? It certainly sounds like it.

But in case my judgement of you is inaccurate, maybe you can tell me, your own understanding of Socialism, and if it can play a positive role in a Democratic Republic? I'm not interested in a textbook definition. Just your opinion. Also, my comments are to YOU, not the rest of the world. And, unless you are God, please don't speak for the rest of the world.

 

Thank you, FAW. .Good bye, Truly Enlightened

 

I think it's a mistake to vote based on who we think is going to beat Trump. Any of these candidates have the same opportunity. The question is how effective Trump will be at cheating. But all Democratic candidates have weaknesses that they compensate with strengths. Non of that is going to be the deciding factor once there is one candidate, and all the "superstars" of the party get behind him or her.

 

I did not accuse you of jumping to conclusions about your tag. I accused you of jumping to conclusions as to the the genesis of my thought process, then I applied that to your tag and pondered whether or not that prediliction for jumping to conclusions is what makes you THINK that you are enlightened.

So you are shocked that people poke fun at someone giving themself a braggodocious nickname ? LOL.. it just does not work. The fact that you do not understand the reality that people are going to judge you by virtue of how you present yourself doesnt exactly strike me as all that "enlightened".If anything, it strikes me as tone deaf. A self aggrandizing nickname is absolutely how you have chosen to present yourself. To pretend otherwise and to conclude that others will not judge you based on that presentation is nonsensical. You should have probably listened to your wife, unless of course you dont mind the first impression being "what a d-bag". To each their own however. I personally do not care. I find your lack of self awareness to be humorous.

It is out of ignorance that the word "socialism" is toxic? Obviously YOU do not see socialism as a bad thing, I think that can be safely derived from your words. Do you REALLY think that someone can not have an independent and correct thought that for them socialism is bad? The only way they can arrive at that conclusion according to you is through ignorance? Most things in the world of politics are a gray area, where there is not a black and white correct answer. Most political preferences depend upon one's perspective on how they view the world. Those preferences are absolutely not a black and white process where there is one objective correct answer. One can absolutely hold the position that the government that governs least governs best. Believing in this one singular mantra is all that is needed for an individual to legitimately conclude that in their view socialism is bad.

I see you playing fast and loose with the definition and are sneaking in the term socialistic and subtly implying that it is somehow synonymous with Socialism. Obviously true Socialism is its own distinct economic system, and all economic systems have some form of socialistic programs. The debate is not really about whether we want to have any type of socialistic programs, rather it is a relative calculation where you look at our current level of socialistic programs and determine whether we want to increase or decrease the amount of socialistic programs. Obviously Bernie Sanders is not going to turn our country into a legitimate Socialist economy. He is however proposing the largest increase in the size of government in our nations history, and when i say largest increase, I mean to an extreme degree when factoring in his Medicare for All and Green New Deal initiative.

In truth, he is not proposing anything all that different from Elizabeth Warren and for that matter most of the candidates on that stage. They all have very similar desires for policy initiatives. This is where Bernie self titling himself a socialist comes into play. Just as you title yourself enlightened and that is how you have chosen to present yourself, he has chosen to call himself a Democratic Socialist, and that is how he has chosen to present himself. When someone tells you something about themselves...LISTEN TO THEM. In truth, I actually admire his honesty, because he reveals his true feelings and makes no bones about it. Most leftists are far more pragmatic, and they purposefully keep under wraps their true intentions until there is a time when they think the electorate will support their position. Obama wrote in his biography that the lesson from the failed attempt at HillaryCare in the 90s was that the country was not ready for full on socialized healthcare, and he instead would push for an incremental approach to achieving the same longer term goal.

I guess all of that is said to explain why Bernie labeling himself as a Democratic Socialist is a toxic label. It is toxic because unlike most other Democrat candidates who all have similar policy goals, he is HONEST about his ultimate desires. He wants to expand the size of government, and when he does that, he wants to expand it some more. That is not to say that he could actually pass any of these pie in the sky initiatives, but the American Public as a whole, in my estimation, is not ready for a candidate that is blatantly espousing such an enormous increase in the size of government, and especially one that is so blatant about his desires that he is daringly labeling himself with the term Socialist. Whether he is really proposing that we change to a true Socialist economy is of no consequence.

The mainstream media line says that Harvey Weinstein raped several women. From all of the available evidence, I would say that their assessment is likely spot on. That is not to say that I do not ever disagree with the media assessment, it is only to convey that in this instance, I agree whole heartedly with how they have analyzed the situation. The same principle applies with Sanders. Both the DNC and entire right side of the spectrum seem to be in agreement. The right desperately wants Bernie to be the nominee, and the DNC does NOT. They are approaching it from two different sides of the coin and for different reasons, yet arriving at the same conclusion. I agree with them. It is my sincere belief that the general election electorate is not going to provide enough votes for a candidate labeling themself a socialist to win. Just because my opinion is in line with theirs does NOT mean that my opinion automatically follows whatever the mainstream says. It only means that my personal analysis happens to align with what the mainstream says in this particular instance. I similarly did not think that Trump could win at this juncture in 2016, so I certainly can be wrong. At no point have I ever said that my opinion is infallible.

LOL......so you took the time to go hunting for other conversation that I have had that did not involve you? Wow, you surely must have a bee in your bonnet!

He and I have probably had over 100 conversation with each other. My generalized presumption which was not about a narrow focused topic from this thread, was based off a much larger dataset from which to draw. The fact that you had to go hunting outside of OUR conversation in order to formulate this retort, sort of indicates that you were unable to find enough in our conversation with which to hold your position.

So you think that you are going to give me a homework assignment and then you are going to critique that assignment? LOL....that is not how this works. There is plenty written above from which you can derive your opinions and respond accordingly.

FWIW...I am well within my rights to give my OPINION as to how the electorate will respond. If I were to call that opinion a fact you would have a legitimate gripe, but since I have done no such thing, you do not.

 

I think the best is Sanders. He clearly represents the heard of the modern DNC, and what the DNC currently believes in.

 

Who is the best candidate for Democrats?

Why, Louis Cyfer, of coarse!

-

 

I see. Perhaps I mistook your OP as being a question about who would be the best person to put up in the general as in most likely to win in a head to head. If you are talking about long term for the health of the party though? I would say any moderate at this point. The country is too divided. If Trump loses the general to Bernie, that is going to be such a hard whiplash from populist right back to populist left that I just don't know how the two worlds will ever rectify reality with one another.

We have people on the Right currently believing everything is against them - the press, career government officials, members of their own party that aren't sufficiently loyal, the judiciary. Everything is fake unless it comports with their preexisting world view. Democrats are communists and anti-Trumpers should be purged.

People on the Left are similarly living in their own bubble. Everything is against them - the MSM, the DNC, the DOJ is out to get them, rich people and corporations are looting the resources of the world. Everything Trump does is bad, and he is going to rig the election. Republicans in congress are traitors to their oath of office. Our species is going to go extinct in the near future due to climate change.

A Bernie presidency I honestly feel is just going to intensify the fraying. There will no doubt be similar calls to oust D's in congress that are not sufficiently progressive, that don't believe in the vision enough. The R backlash will be massive and ceaseless, likely pushing D voters further toward extremes themselves. We will be left with two extreme parties and a much more radicalized populace. It is frankly terribly unhealthy in my opinion. I hope I am wrong.

 

The R backlash will lack the intensity of the Dem energy this fall, because beginning next spring the Rs will be definitely minority and more so every month thereafter. When Tx goes blue, it is over for the Rs.

 

Oh... sorry. I meant the best in the long run. I should have clarified.

Who would that backlash come from? In that scenario, Democrats will have expanded their base to include a number of young voters who will continue being loyal to him. At least, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't. And once they "feel" like Democrats, and anti-Republicans... most of them will be part of a new solid backbone. While the backbone of Republicans is currently 65 and over. Not one that seems likely to expand.

Assuming that were true (and I don't) then, all things being equal, Democrats will still hold the edge in the long run. In the scenario in which Sanders wins, now they become the Democratic party. And they can mold the DNC any way they want to their liking.

This is a valid concern that I completely share. I do hope that the Democratic party does not become a party of ideologues. Like the Republican Party is currently. I don't think the same mentality exists among Democrats, but I can't argue against your point.

Maybe, in the end, if this happens, Republicans will see the opening to become the centrist party. And we'll just swap sides.

I too hope you are...

 

To clarify then, when I said "If Trump loses the general to Bernie, that is going to be such a hard whiplash from populist right back to populist left..." I was insinuating a backlash from R's, conservative independents, center right, and disillusionment of moderates who may support the D nominee now mainly in opposition to Trump. There are disaffected R's who are embarrassed by what Trump has turned the party into, who may be similarly radicalized under a swift shift to the far left.

 

Sorry, based on being around since Truman, I have seen the same political theater, and the same political players come and go. With or without blinders, after 70 years of hearing the same political promises, seeing the same political personalities, listening to the same platitudes and partisan soundbites, the results are always the same. The rich are still getting richer, and the poor are still getting poorer. Both political parties serve, and are funded by Corporate America. Every President, for the last 70 years, has failed us(maybe not Kennedy). We have become a society that is accustomed to failure and mediocrity(IMHO).

My opinions of the candidates, are based on their words, maturity, experience, honesty, political and personal history, actions, political gravitas, and their voting record in Congress. Does my opinion imply absolute certainty? Only to me, and I will gladly list my reasons why. But to others, I thought it would be a given. Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Warren(and without a doubt Steyer and Bloomberg), are Corporatists. They are NOT going to end regime-change wars, take money out of politics, end the revolving door, or remove crippling sanctions. They are NOT going to remove student loan debts, or support a completely free college system(without some strings attached). They are NOT going to attack the MIC, Big Pharma(to negotiate drug prices, and open new markets), Wall St. or the inherent nature of Capitalism. If they walk like a duck, sound like a duck...., then they must be a duck. I do agree, that the DNC will only promote the candidate of their choice, not the peoples. Fortunately, they have wasted all their resources in smearing Tulsi, that it is now too late to start smearing Bernie. Clearly the people don't want more corporate mouthpieces, to go along to get along. So, based on all the early primary results, putting anyone, other than Bernie to face Trump, would be just giving Trump the election. I have heard that, the DNC would rather lose the election, than to nominate a progressive.

So, when I see the same type of people saying the same type of things for 70 years, then, why would I NOT expect the same type of results? The only two candidates that tick all the boxes, are Tulsi and Bernie. Any candidate that says, they will end all regime-change and illegal wars, lift all unnecessary sanctions on foreign countries, return to all nuclear peace treaties, get money out of politics and end the revolving door, legalize marijuana, bring back Glass-Stegall and our anti-trust regulations, prison and legal reforms, end the cash-bail system, return all our troops from foreign countries, and use the Trillions wasted in taking lives, to be used at home for saving lives, will have my vote. It is no wonder, Corporate America, threw everything the had at her. With her speaking talents, looks, youth, combat veteran status, experience, and knowledge, her message would certainly resonate with the people. So the smear attacks began early, and have continued relentlessly.

For at least 70 years, no progressive has ever been nominated by the DNC. This in itself begs the question, WHY? Because, progressive policies will NOT just pay "lip service" to the idea of "America First". These candidates may be able to stand up against Trump. But, IMO, they have no chance of winning. Like Tulsi said, what good is it to beat Trump, and have a candidate that will keep making the same mistakes. This is NOT just about beating Trump. This is about helping all the people, not just the 1%.

Where is this younger generation you are talking about? What specifically have they done in the past, that I should trust their judgement? How exactly has this trust been earned? Our amendments were the results of abuses to our Constitution, not because earlier generations thought they would be a good thing. I'm not wearing any blinders or filters, but clearly burying your head in the sand, seems to be your alternative method of enlightenment. Not mine. Here is another prediction. If Bernie and Tulsi are screwed by the DNC's interference, you will back here again after 4 years, doing the same song and dance. Just like the last 70 years.

 

It is amazing how so many words can say so little, to protect such a large ego. I guess it's a good thing, that my tag isn't "Godly", "Reverend", or "Worldly", or your head might explode. Anyone who thinks it is okay to insult, or scold someone, because of the tag they use on social media, and then blame the user for complaining about being insulted, clearly have their own security and maturity issues to address. I personally am only interested in what you have to say. I don't judge anyone by their tag, their age, their intelligence, or their level of comprehension.

I will let the readers decide whether you were just casually poking fun at my tag or not. Or, the meaning of your jumping to conclusion remarks. Clearly honesty will not be forthcoming from you. IMHO, you are just projecting, all of the things, that you accuse others of doing. And, then you attack them if they try to defend themselves. In that way, you will always remain in control of the narrative. But, in reality, you are just avoiding my points, with really poor gibberish editorializing, taking words out of context, creating straw man(jumping to conclusions about my tag, or you should have known what would happen), and condescending ad hominem attacks(attacking my character, not the logic or the premise of my argument). So let me repeat them, without your silly distractions.

I asked for your OPINION on Socialism, and the role it can play in a Democratic Republic Government. You refuse, and mischaracterize my request as a homework assignment.
Those people who think the word Socialism is Toxic, are saying so because they don't understand, that some aspects of socialism can actually be beneficial to society.
Many people say that Socialism creates equality and provides security for the workers. And, that Capitalism exploits the workers(supply and demand) for the benefit of the wealthy. Some critics say that Socialism is based on a faulty principle, and ignores human nature. What is your own informed opinion on Socialism, or on any of its beneficial aspects?
Bernie keeps saying that he is a "Democratic Socialist". So why does mainstream media propagandize only the "Socialist" part? Or, "a self-titled socialist".
When Bernie is talking about Democratic Socialism, he is talking about Medicare, or countries like Denmark and Sweden. Not Cuba or N. Korea. Is this what the media promotes?
Why does Trump say, "Democratic lawmakers are embracing Socialism. They want to replace individual rights, with total government domination.". But, I suppose that it's only HIS opinion, right? He has no influence in the shaping of public opinion, or, in contributing to their level of ignorance, right?
By simply saying that Bernie wants to expand the Government, only alienates those who want smaller government control. I don't think Bernie was advocating more control by the Government. I think he was talking about focusing government attention, on addressing the needs of the people(healthcare, housing, jobs, etc.).

If your few of socialism has been shaped by the mainstream consensus, then it has nothing to do with black and white, your perspective, or your experiences in life. It has to do with your level of gullibility and indoctrination. You simply believe, that what you are being told is true. And, that the people telling you so, are people that you can trust. Even when you are being lied to your faces for decades(Viet Nam, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Bolivia, etc), you will even believe the excuses for the lies you are being told. Talk about social conditioning. The truth is easily found. Just stop listening to paid actors. Go to independent news outlets, or foreign independent outlets. Then you want be so easily fooled with, Tulsi cozies up to dictators, or is a Russian plant. Tell me, do you know the difference between the BDS, and the BDS movement? I didn't think so. Opinions were molded about one, and applied to the other. The gullible public dismissed a candidate, because they didn't know the difference either.

Picking examples of media lines, that can be objectively verified, is just being sloppy, and intellectually dishonest. How about WMD's, gassing of his people, killing of a national(and 9 others) within their own country, CIA covert operations, Constitutional violations, and the illegal regime-changing of foreign governments?

You have every right to your opinions, and so do I. But you don't have a right to your own facts. You could certainly be right. Maybe Klobuchar will win the nomination, and go on to win every state in the general election. Is it an opinion? Absolutely. Is it possible? Absolutely. But, is it probable, based on the evidence? Absolutely NOT. But, you are still entitled to your own opinion. Whether it is based on fact, or based on belief. IMHO, an INFORMED opinion is always based on facts, not belief.

So, if all you have to offer is your uninformed opinions, then lets just agree to disagree. I prefer to converse with people who can provide more than just opinions to back up their claims.

​

 

A theory for thought. The U.S. has always been pretty much a place where immigrants came to improve their condition and where wealth was a common denominator. Washington, our hero of the Revolution and first President, was probably the wealthiest person in the North American colonies at the time and a great land speculator, in an agricultural economy, in which wealth was largely determined by land ownership. Taxation without representation was the popular cause of revolution, but the King's Proclamation of 1764, which prohibited westward expansion of the colonies, was perhaps an even larger cause for separation.
Land lost importance with the coming of the industrial revolution. Initially, that revolution was dependent on manual labor, which encouraged immigration. And, it was that immigration and industrialization, coupled with the broadening of the voter franchise that brought the rise in the power and influence of the federal government, which from Theodore Roosevelt, through Wilson, and to FDR laid the foundation of the modern welfare state.
Following WW II, with much of the rest of the industrialized world destroyed by the war, the U.S. assumed the role of the former colonial powers, and became the new Imperial power abroad, with a "mixed economy" at home comprised of government "rewards" for those who fought and the expanded electorate and, over time, an immigration policy that shifted its purpose from the needs of industrialization (with the advent of the post-war baby-boom and growing production efficiencies) toward "political rewards" for those abroad, who helped us maintain the new American Empire abroad, particularly in cases of failure (the Middle East, Africa, SE Asia, Central America, etc.). That shift produced another change in the political ideologies of new immigrants, now often reflecting the politics of the failed regimes we had supported abroad, rather than the earlier immigrant surges who had brought with them the social radicalism of Western Europe and the organization of American Labor.
All of these historical changes have created a "mixed economy" of free enterprise capitalism and socialist government and brought us to the present day. Americans, who comprise the middle class are generally happy with the "balance." Trickle down Reaganomics, which paradoxically began ceasing to work, just as it was defined, was effectively killed by a combination of automation at home and increasing global competitiveness abroad. This dilemma, largely created by our very past successes, has now created a struggle between the two major political parties, in their battle for the votes of the middle class and those who are seeking to join that class. The support (to the left or right) will shift with the conclusions they draw regarding the programs that have led to their present condition.
History matters...it forms the basis of our ability to predict the future, which has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the human species. And, to use an old cliché, it is particularly a time in which we must exercise care not to throw the baby out with the wash.