https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-cuba-socialist-defense Here we go. That won't help Bolshevik Bernie win Florida. Thoughts?
Oh dear. Yeah, purely anecdotal but we have a couple Cuban families at my school, and I've talked to the folks a bit during parent-teacher conferences. They do NOT like Fidel. At. ALL. The kids don't either, but I doubt they even know what the heck a Fidel Castro is. Gotta wonder what kind of hornet's nest Sanders just stirred up in Florida. Should Sanders take the nom, Trump's local political commercials just wrote themselves.
Sanders says he doesn't like the authoritarianism in Cuba, but socialism is based on coercion, by force.
Here we go indeed. Former Obama National Finance Committee Member Don Peebles said he will not support Sen. Bernie Sanders if he secures the presidential nomination. Appearing on "Fox & Friends" Sunday, Peebles told host Lisa Boothe he was "not" prepared to embrace a socialist candidate to represent his party, and called on other candidates to restrategize their campaigns in an effort to take down the 78-year-old frontrunner. "There's no way I could vote for Bernie Sanders as a socialist," Peebles said Sunday. https://www.foxnews.com/media/don-peebles-bernie-sanders-socialist
Be happy ..let him expose his Karl Marx lies and in Nov we will be dancing lol Bernie called Israel a racist nation
Not necessarily. There's two types of force, related specifically to politics(or any kind of group activity.) The force of intimidation and the force of persuasion. There's no doubt that most regimes have used the force of intimidation, this is true(especially to put down dissents.) but the most long lasting and successing regimes or ideas in general have succeeded through the force of persuasion(IE: The convincing of the argument.) It's argued in most social studies and classes of that nature that we want to be persuasive as possible. Preferably with our ideas. I'm not arguing that Castro's Cuba was persuasive with its ideas, but that possibly Sanders would be more persuasive with ideas and less with force(though his supporters unfortunately put a dent in that interpretation.)
Why worry about labels? Why not just take a look at Sanders' proposals and decide what you think of them? Obviously, no matter what Bernie calls himself, he would, if elected, have to implement any of his proposals through our democratic republic system with its checks and balances, just like any other president.
Does our "democratic Republic" have checks and balances, or does it have competing powers that results in dysfunction of overall government? As we look at the House debacle, the Senate inaction and the weight of the judiciary on the outcomes of social behavior, we find that each merely overrules its own turf, and that rule inhibits the greater good. Obviously, I'm alone in my sea of Nationalism/Fascist-Technocracy, but I think we've outgrown our government of "checks and balances"(IE: Inter-state fighting.) It forces conflict, it resolves conflict bitterly and sets up future conflict.
Do you think he should lie to win votes? It’s a tactic that can demonstrably work but that doesn’t mean we should be encouraging it in our politicians. In simple terms, isn’t what he said true? Just because someone does bad things doesn’t automatically make everything they do bad and how you address the things they do should be based on the merits of the action rather than the individual alone. I also can’t help making a comparison between this and the US being a long term ally of Saudi Arabia despite their authoritarian policies and practices.
Agreed. I'm not a Saudi fan, and I actually think Sanders is right: ME Policy should be based on what the US wants to accomplish in the region. HRC, faults or not mentioned this in her book Hard Choices. One of those hard choices has been appeasement for the sake of containment. In reality, we didn't contain anything in the region. It may just be that it's not containable.
You mean a State that he Won (by over 100,000 Votes) in 2016, and was expected to Win Again? Yeah, that is quite an "addition". Anyway, if anybody in FL has a problem with this "Cuba Stuff" they are free to vote for someone else. ^Problem Solved.
At the same time he lambasted Trump for being friendly with a (another) "murderous dictator" from N. Korea.
Strange, isn't it? But Trump got lambasted when the left misquoted his 'nice people on both sides" comment.
The guy just can't help himself. He's delusional but doesn't realize how delusional he actually is. Now we just need to ask him what he thinks of Mao, Pol Pot and Marx then put it in a campaign add.
That was in the past and people change and nobody has ever practiced REAL socialism or Marxism. Have I missed any of the patented and traditional excuses of the Political Left?
But all those attempts at “sort of socialism and Marxism” have work out splendidly. If we would just go all the way and do it for real, then it would all work out?
You could say the same of Hitler. Cuba is a brutal, totalitarian nation that has destroyed Cuba. It was one of the most prosperous nations in Latin American pre-Castro, my dad was there on business at that time and raved about Cuba. Shame on Sanders for holding up this dictatorship to admire in any way. How bad would things have to be in the US for 10% of the population (33,000,000) to leave, which is what happened in Cuba? Who is advocating the US adopt a Saudi Arabian form of government?
