Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Sanders Thread: Post you nerds!

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 23 Feb 2016, 01:12
So what do you guys think of Sanders? And for the US comrades who is voting for him?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 23 Feb 2016, 10:25
Best option of the major candidates for domestic policies within the United States, probably.

Regarding US foreign policy and the future of American imerialism? It won't make much of a difference.
Sanders supported the financing of the Iraq war, supports the zionist entity and wants to continue the drone strikes. For anyone who isn't American, wether Sanders or Clinton wins does not matter much at all.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 Feb 2016, 12:34
Wakizashi the Bolshevik wrote:
Best option of the major candidates for domestic policies within the United States, probably.

Regarding US foreign policy and the future of American imerialism? It won't make much of a difference.
Sanders supported the financing of the Iraq war, supports the zionist entity and wants to continue the drone strikes. For anyone who isn't American, wether Sanders or Clinton wins does not matter much at all.


Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq war, and did not support any financing whatsoever. As for Israel, I dunno.

Overall, I'm contributing to the Sanders campaign when able, and definitely voting for him.

He has every chance of winning, especially since, with all of her big money donors, Clinton isn't yet able to shake him off this far in the game.

And I would say it very much does matter for every citizen of the Earth whom the next President will be. If you don't believe that, try welcoming Trump into the international fold.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 23 Feb 2016, 15:01
Comrade Gulper wrote:

Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq war, and did not support any financing whatsoever. As for Israel, I dunno.

Overall, I'm contributing to the Sanders campaign when able, and definitely voting for him.

He has every chance of winning, especially since, with all of her big money donors, Clinton isn't yet able to shake him off this far in the game.

And I would say it very much does matter for every citizen of the Earth whom the next President will be. If you don't believe that, try welcoming Trump into the international fold.


Sanders voted for supporting Israel during the Gaza war of 2014. He supports the arming of rebel groups in Syria. And, let me stress this again, he wants to continue the drone strike campaign.

Is Sanders a sign on the wall of a tad bit more hope for the US in the future? Definitely.
Is he a Socialist? Definitely not.

The Bernie Sanders hype is Obama hype 2.0. Back in 2008 the world was euphoric about Obama and his promised "change". And eight years later, look where we are. Not much further.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 Feb 2016, 18:02
Of course, there's a great deal of hype.

Obama hasn't accomplished a great deal, primarily because the country is polarized and both houses of Congress were filled with Teabaggers.

But he has accomplished a few important things, such as the beginning steps of universal health care, immigration reform, reasonable wages and fees for college tuition, etc. It's all in the embryonic stage, but it's further than we got with Bill Clinton, and it's further than we would ever get with Hillary.

Bernie Sanders won't save the planet, but he will at least live up to the progressive legacy of Obama in a way that no other candidate even talks about doing.

It's up to the American people to elect him, and also to keep Teabaggers out of Congress. We'll see what happens. The reverse is unthinkable.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 Feb 2016, 21:09
I'll probably be voting for Jill Stein or Gloria La Riva in the general. Anything that can help build a substantive socialist left party, or (much less likely) pull the Democrats even significantly left enough to be akin to a European social democratic party, is a good thing. I wouldn't do that if I lived in a state that's in play though, a Republican President would be seen as a defeat for Obama's policies and would pull the Democrats right of even the meager gains we've seen under him. Kennedy/Johnson were both war criminals and not even European social democrats, but Reaganism represented a rout for their policies and drove us into a significantly worse state. I try to live as much as possible in the world of the possible, so that's my strategery.

In the primary, I firmly support Sanders. I say this as someone who recognizes and accepts Noam Chomsky's critique of him, that without building a left-wing movement in the legislature he'll be all alone and thus will have to compromise. I do think most of his supporters, if he's elected, will be disillusioned. The failure to build a coherent progressive legislative base first might harm the left and be presented as "a failure of socialism" when if anything it's a failure of reformist soc-dem policies. I also think the election of the first female President is actually an important symbol, breaking a major cultural barrier; "first Jewish President" is nowhere near as important a hurdle. "First socialist President" might be considering the history of the Red Scare but that's a matter of ideological choice rather than birth, and in the classical sense he's a social democrat rather than a socialist regardless.

Why do I support him then? I do not believe Clinton will take a firm stance as President against the TPP, which she helped negotiate and turned "against" at the last minute. Despite recognizing that by necessity he'll have to be a center-left reformer in office, I do at least trust him to be a consistent center-left reformer. He's opposed it from day one and I expect a serious fight with him in office, where I expect a meagerly "modified" version of the deal with Clinton. Considering the job losses and elevation of corporate personhood to corporate nationhood for the purposes of Pacific trade, that alone is enough to secure my support.

Likewise, on foreign policy, I have some complaints about Bernie. They're mostly related to his desire to bring Saudi Arabia in on the anti-ISIS coalition in a substantive way, something that would give the most repressive state on the planet even more regional clout. The problem is, every other candidate in the two major parties has said things to the same effect. He's shown the best judgment there. Clinton, meanwhile, wanted to go into Syria against Assad; she was outflanked to the left in the administration by even Joe Biden, no progressive champion. Entry into Syria would have involved us in a Vietnam/Iraq-like quagmire and led to yet more instability.

Finally, he's made a constitutional amendment to ban corporate finance of campaigns and an end to Taft-Hartley which hamstrings union organizing major issues. Both are seriously important to me, because they make gains for the genuine left more possible by leveling the playing field. With the small-scale and mostly toothless McCain-Feingold destroyed by Citizens United and the labor movement in America effectively crushed since the late 40s, it seems to me the late-capitalist trajectory towards Wall Street oligarchy is speeding up like crazy. I don't think Hillary will do anything serious to challenge it, considering her own tremendous Wall Street backing. The only other candidate with as much backing from them is Marco Rubio, under current campaign finance stats.

The only candidate arguably as solid on those three questions is Donald Trump. And on that: I'll agree he's relatively trustable and solid in his desire to block TPP, but that's only for the job losses; any renegotiated form probably would include the corporate nationhood provisions under him. He refers to it as a "bad deal," negotiated by the "weak" Obama rather than from a position of strength. He has no opposition to it in principle if America came out better in it. He's the best Republican on foreign policy, but still opposes the Iran deal which is a humongous block against what would potentially be a cataclysmic conflict between the US and Iran. And his response to campaign finance is "I'm a billionaire, I can't be bought," when it's not just an issue of one President; as usual, his stance there lacks anything in the way of substance. Plus his movement is this petit-bourgeois populist thing with nativist tendencies and a cult of personality around a strong, authoritarian figure; it legitimately looks incipiently fascist. All of that combined means I'd probably even support Clinton against him, and he doesn't really bug me as much as (theocratic Reaganism-on-steroids slash-and-burn-the-gubbermint) Cruz or ("lawlz shooting down Russian planes is like any other country right? WWIII is fine") Rubio.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 Feb 2016, 23:38
If Sanders wins election, he'll have to move to neutralize the far right, which will go thermonuclear in a way that even their response against Obama has been a mere prep drill for. He'll have to aggressively and actively push progressive policies in a way that few other Presidents have ever had to do, and the stress and strain may well be too much for him.

My biggest fear concerning him is that, with all of the Tea Party combined against him and with no correspondingly aggressive counter movement, he will be a completely neutered single term President who will die soon after leaving office, thus being denied the chance to build a post-Presidential legacy a la Jimmy Carter.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 24 Feb 2016, 05:47
Finally some action.

Comrade Gulper wrote:
He has every chance of winning, especially since, with all of her big money donors, Clinton isn't yet able to shake him off this far in the game.

This is a valid point. The longer Clinton has to battle Sanders the more she is going to be revealed as an obvious right-wing corporate shill. But while I do think Sanders could potentially beat Clinton, he will lose the national election almost certainly.

Comrade Gulper wrote:
And I would say it very much does matter for every citizen of the Earth whom the next President will be. If you don't believe that, try welcoming Trump into the international fold.

I don't know why anyone takes Trump so seriously. He will follow a traditional neo-liberal economic policy while making loud statements.

MissStrangelove wrote:
I'll probably be voting for Jill Stein or Gloria La Riva in the general.

Gross.

MissStrangelove wrote:
a Republican President would be seen as a defeat for Obama's policies and would pull the Democrats right of even the meager gains we've seen under him. Kennedy/Johnson were both war criminals and not even European social democrats, but Reaganism represented a rout for their policies and drove us into a significantly worse state. I try to live as much as possible in the world of the possible, so that's my strategery.

Absurd considering that Obama is himself a Reaganite rightist. The Democrat Establishment is firmly entrenched in the right and will only drift further regardless of who is elected. Sanders will be a lame duck more because of opposition from the New Democrats than even from Republican opponents. Kennedy was a right-wing hack himself who simply was guided by men smart enough to play hardball with Soviet propaganda (cowing to the civil rights movement was about preventing Soviet influence from having an easy case to make against American "liberty").

MissStrangelove wrote:
In the primary, I firmly support Sanders. I say this as someone who recognizes and accepts Noam Chomsky's critique of him, that without building a left-wing movement in the legislature he'll be all alone and thus will have to compromise.

This is a foregone conclusion and why I sincerely hope Sanders isn't actually elected.

MissStrangelove wrote:
I do think most of his supporters, if he's elected, will be disillusioned. The failure to build a coherent progressive legislative base first might harm the left and be presented as "a failure of socialism" when if anything it's a failure of reformist soc-dem policies.

Exactly. I almost wonder if that wasn't the whole reason behind this "socialist" campaign.

MissStrangelove wrote:
I also think the election of the first female President is actually an important symbol, breaking a major cultural barrier; "first Jewish President" is nowhere near as important a hurdle. "First socialist President" might be considering the history of the Red Scare but that's a matter of ideological choice rather than birth, and in the classical sense he's a social democrat rather than a socialist regardless.

I cannot imagine a worse woman to have the honor of being our first elected president. Only the most liberal of CEO "feminists" could present her as a not totally embarrassing option.

I will vote for Sanders in the primary and the general all the same. My hope being that it will cause a civil war among the Democrats.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 24 Feb 2016, 10:20
A good article about the phenomenon in general: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.nl/2016/02/a-mo ... ility.html

Sanders is a social-democrat, and a pretty mild one at that. People shouldn't delude themselves. The problem with the left, especially the Anglo/American, is that they latch onto these leaders, these guys, but they fail to build up an independent working-class movement that can go on in case the candidate loses, or wins and betrays his principles, or whatever. In a country like France, you have the Eurocommunist party that backs a reformist candidate like Mélenchon. Which I'm extremely critical of, but at least they can say that if Mélenchon chokes to death on a frog leg or something, the party, the trade union movement, the daily paper, in short, all of the "life" around the party and its movement, all live on to fight another day.

Sure, the US system is a bit different, with an even more personalised presidential system than France; but there are worrying signs. Is it true that almost all the trade unions are backing Hillary? They may not be very influential anymore, and their leaders are probably sell-outs, but this still matters.

I would probably still vote for Bernie if I were in the position to do so, since it's not much of an effort. But I also wish he would learn from the Trump campaign a bit. He is sacrificing a lot of high ground by refusing to really stick the boot into Hillary, when there is so much to be concerned about.
lev
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 256
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2016, 14:43
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 24 Feb 2016, 15:51
My suggestion is that given the obnoxious personality of Trump, there is high probability that Sanders might be the next President of USA, so we must give our full support to his candidacy because the vexations would really be upsetting and threatening for him and his constituents. Imagine a former center right Congress wiped out and replaced by members of the Communist Party of USA. That would cause all of the Nazi sympathizers of the US Army do a DIE HARD2.


Bernie's personal email to me. He is leading in the surveys.

Domingo -

Given the state of the Republican presidential race, it’s time to acknowledge a very uncomfortable truth: Donald Trump is probably going to be the Republican nominee.

The question for Democrats is simple. Who has the best chance to defeat Trump? And by any objective measure, the answer is Bernie Sanders. In almost every recent head-to-head poll against Trump, Bernie leads by a wide margin while Hillary Clinton either trails or is within the margin of error. Take a look at these recent polling averages:

Huffington Post Average of Recent Polls
Sanders: 51% to Trump: 41%
Clinton: 48% to Trump: 44%

We have momentum, we have one less pledged delegate than Hillary Clinton, and we're closing the gap in the national polls. But with 26 primaries and caucuses in the next three weeks, Bernie needs you now:

Contribute $3 to our campaign today. It could mean the difference between victory and defeat — between taking back our country from the billionaire class, or President Donald Trump.

The truth is, it’s going to take more than establishment politics and establishment thinking to beat Donald Trump.

But together, we are building something unprecedented. That is why we’re doing so well in the polls, and why we’ve seen grassroots enthusiasm unmatched by any candidate on either side of this primary. Only Trump comes close. And that is why what we are building is what will be required to defeat him.

In solidarity,

Jeff Weaver
Campaign Manager
Bernie 2016
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 25 Feb 2016, 15:18
As a third-worlder all I want is a US president who isn't going to bomb me, or try to overthrow my government, or manipulate my economy, or sanction me from using US $ just because he can. I don't care about health-care, insurance, or pensions. I only care about running tap water, 24 hour electricity, at least 2 meals a day and access to all kinds of books. I'm willing to sacrifice on everything else if that would mean not having to worry about wars, anarchy or societal disorder as a result of US foreign policy.

So whichever candidate who is most gentle on foreign policy would be fine with me.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 25 Feb 2016, 17:48
MissStrangelove wrote:
The only candidate arguably as solid on those three questions is Donald Trump.


So if it comes down to a Clinton-Trump match-up, does that mean that the logical thing for leftists to do is vote Trump?


Also as a foreigner, I'm pretty much with Yeqon. If Trump 'respects' my country's president and recognizes Russia's basic right to exist (Kissinger vs. Brzezinski realism vs. idealism debate), that's pretty much enough for me. Also, I must admit that it's really satisfying to see him crush dynasty politicians like Bush, and expose the bankruptcy of 'money in US politics'. Plus, he doesn't really seem that friendly with the Saudis, or even the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby (telling the latter 'I don't want your money' in December). He wants US allies to step up and pay for their own defense, which, if implemented, could mean at least a mild scaling back of the American empire.

The question, of course, is just how much he would be able to go against the powerful entrenched political and military machine of US imperialism. However, one thing is clear: in the case of things like praising anti-terrorist forces in Syria, or saying that Putin is his good buddy, he's definitely not really winning any browny points with anyone; nevertheless, he keeps chugging along and challenging both Republican and Democrat concepts which might threaten to ignite wars and cause new instability around the world.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 26 Feb 2016, 20:43
Trump is prone to make enemies, of which he probably already has more than Dick Nixon, Barry Goldwater, and the Bush family combined.

Trump's foreign policy is very much in line with the old school (extremely old school, pre-WWII, to be exact) Republican ideology that requires foreign allies to pull their own weight. He's protectionist and isolationist, both of which again are old time Republican party values.

The thing that scares the Teabaggers more than anything isn't his suspected "liberalism" and "Democrat leanings", but his profane charisma, his total unpredictability and his basic allegiance to traditional, rather than radical, Republican values. In that sense, he's more of a genuine patriot than someone like Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio, either of whom would sell their stock in America in a heartbeat to reap a pay day and a new home in the Caymans.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 26 Feb 2016, 20:43
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Absurd considering that Obama is himself a Reaganite rightist.

Agreed, his healthcare plan is the Bob Dole plan from the 90s. The problem is, the GOP is currently right of even Reagan. And a rout for Obama's policies from the right rather than the left will lead to even him being presented as "too left-wing." Just like Carter, a relatively conservative Democrat in the 70s, is now somehow seen as a far-left champion.

Quote:
Sanders will be a lame duck more because of opposition from the New Democrats than even from Republican opponents.

I wouldn't say "more," Republicans control the House and Senate. But significantly, sure.

Quote:
Kennedy was a right-wing hack himself who simply was guided by men smart enough to play hardball with Soviet propaganda (cowing to the civil rights movement was about preventing Soviet influence from having an easy case to make against American "liberty").

Yes, and much of the New Frontier/Great Society was undone under Reagan. What were previously social-democrat-lite policies are now considered very left-wing in the US, as shown in Sanders himself holding to them. The rout by Reaganism shifted the overton window right and made even the New Deal Democrats anathema.

soviet78 wrote:
So if it comes down to a Clinton-Trump match-up, does that mean that the logical thing for leftists to do is vote Trump?

I don't think so, for the listed reasons.
Incipiently fascist movement (Clinton lacks it), opposition to the Iran deal (Clinton supports it). no opposition to the corporate nationhood provisions of TPP in and of themselves (Clinton doesn't either but it shows Trump's neoliberalism), no serious proposal on campaign finance (likewise), rout for even pathetically meager gains like Obamacare (Clinton is Obama continuity).

Even the most pathetically corrupt bourgeois government is superior to far-right populism, I think. Much as we might like some of the things Trump does.
lev
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 256
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2016, 14:43
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 26 Feb 2016, 22:19
A politician beholdened to Russia is good. Why? Because the ruling elite in Russia still have that sentimental feelings towards socialism. I love my Russian girlfriend.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqlpX8OAy2w
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 01 Mar 2016, 03:44
Some of the deadliest opponents of progressive social change sometimes turn out to be "house pets" of the good ol' boys club. Debbie Wasserman Schulz has long been bought and paid for and is firmly entrenched behind the scenes working her tackily manicured nails off in support of Our Lady.

Meanwhile, an ardent Catholic such as Anton Scalia had no trouble working in behalf of WASPy sons of the plantation who orchestrated the Southern Strategy and policies against Hispanic immigrants, the majority of whom are ardent Catholics.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 03 Mar 2016, 01:20
Pardon ye double post, but it's been a few days and it seems my suspicions are correct.

Bernie ain't doing so hot, although he's got a few states (Vermont and Colorado, at least).

Meanwhile, Trump is mopping the floor with Canada Cruz and lil' Sparky Rubio.

And then there's the spectacular Satanic soul sale of Chris Christie...

Image
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Mar 2016, 20:51
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 06 Mar 2016, 20:56
He is innocent. Innocent in that he think voting can change anything. I respect him but disagree with him and knew he would still lose. I voted for him because he helped get the massage out.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 28 Mar 2016, 13:42
So Sanders just won 3 more states straight over the weekend. Whatever else happens, I can't emphasize enough just how happy I am that the establishment in both parties is being grilled by outsiders. When is the FBI going to indict Clinton already?! (I know it will not happen; Obama won't let it happen.)

Also there's this interesting interview he recorded in Yaroslavl, RSFSR in 1988 when, as mayor of Burlington, Vermont he traveled to the Soviet city as part of the sister city exchange program:
[url]
https://soundcloud.com/gdnusaudio/berni ... d-the-ussr
[/url]

Ignore the description to the audio, and just listen for yourself if you're interested. I think it's pretty fair - certainly much more so than probably any other sitting US politician has ever given of the USSR.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
lev
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 256
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2016, 14:43
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 28 Mar 2016, 14:09
Start mobilizing the Political Left. We shall rule America. No more capitalism. In 31 years, I see a true-to-life dictatorship of the proletariat! Bet all you have!
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron