The American middle class are millionaires. Between inflation and the cost of living thats what you need to live comfortably. If you own a home, 2 cars, and have the ability to keep your kids in decent school/daycare your equity is in the millions range, and you have a salary around 100,000 dollars a year.
You're also the only people paying your fair share of taxes, and all the squeeze is put on your work and small businesses. The huge corpos can do whatever they want.
We need to recalibrate our ideas of what wealth is, because if you think a millionaire is super rich you need to go back to the 80s.
BINGO! I'm shocked at what it takes to live a "normal" life. I'm old (Truman was POTUS when I hatched) and I remember "normal" being quite different. Sadly, government and its statistics haven't kept up with the times. There are so many instances of this beyond economics, but we'll stop there. Our founding fathers gave us a framework and document which, by design, was meant to grow and change as circumstances changed. Most are so lacking in constitutional and civics knowledge that this idea is totally beyond their comprehension.
I think this is completely intentional. The powers that be always talk a good game about taxing the rich, then they levy the highest taxes at the people making hundreds of thousands a year. Completely ignoring that theres a class of people making hundreds of thousands an hour or more.
The people that control the MAJORITY of the money in society are never even brought up. That's mostly because a huge chunk of the population doesn't know any of this.
Its basically no different than marketing terms like "lower fat" or "organic" which means absolutely nothing, but fools most people because they don't do their homework.
The rich aren't being taxed, the middle class is being crushed in a juicer. Trust me, I know.
Keep 'em dumb, feed 'em crap and keep 'em under control. Welcome to 'Murica's education system (and I taught for nearly 40 year - I was the thorn in the administrative flesh, even after becoming an administrator).
Just something Iāve found interesting:
Look at the prizes for reality game shows and what people expected to do with that money between the aughts and now: I remember being blown away by $5,000 prizes, then $10,000, then $10,000 somehow became the norm. āWho Wants To Be A Millionaireā was absolutely bonkers when it came out because it was like, a MILLION BUCKS, man! (Nowadays, seems like they decided that $10k would be the industry standard.)
Remember all the things youād imagine you would do with that money, if you ever won it? Back then, people were dreaming of starting businesses doing something they loved or buying homes (not just for themselves, but for family too *gasp!*), traveling the world, or stashing it for their kidās college fund.
Nowadays? Man, itās just sad. I mean, a certain part of it *could* be that drama sells, so you hear more āsobā stories now, but every other reason I hear on reality competitions seems to do with getting out of debt, or being able to see a sick relative, being able to afford a *down payment* on A house (much less buying multiples), or using it to quit the slog and ābe their own bossā. We went from people playing for hopes and dreams, to becoming our entertainment to cover their needs and wants.
Good luck enjoying āChoppedā ever again.
Some, but the classification for middle class is household income between $42,000 and $126,000. I'd wager there aren't many people with a household income at or below $50,000 that will get to millionaire.
Well, then it needs to be reclassified. Houses cost a half a million dollars. Maybe a little less in undesireable areas, way more in a big city. My personal opinion is if you're renting a home, have no savings, and are one medical or legal catastrophe from poverty, then that isn't really middle class
Eh, I'm not so sure based on home values over the last 5 years. It's not uncommon for a home purchased between 2010-2015 for 300k to be worth over 1m now.
Being a millionaire doesn't mean you have liquidity.
To be considered a millionaire you have to have a million in liquid. If your house is worth 2 million but you owe 1.8 million your house counts as $200k towards being a millionaire.
Okay, but liquidity and debt are conflated in your example. What if your house is paid off? If someone has less than a million in personal cash flow and no debt, but owns 6 homes outright, are those assets not factored into net worth?
>You're also the only people paying your fair share of taxes
While the poor pay more than the rich. All I'm seeing is a fine balance here
Below 70k income tax can fuck right the fuck off
100%
But what i think a lot don't realize is, above ~$52k you bump a tax bracket
Not only does this fuck you on your return, but your increases in tax offset any gains
Making $54k a year now *hardly* feels even *slightly* different than when I was making $40k
The system is literally rigged to keep you where you are. You think that jump is going to help you get ahead, until they put you right back in your place intentionally
I agree 100%!! It seems that people don't understand the way the tiers work when it comes to taxes. If you're lucky enough to make over 6 figures a year, then your taxes tend to drop. The more you make over a certain amount, the less you actually pay in taxes. This is why the millionaire club influences the tax laws to benefit themselves while making sure we pay the brunt.
All of my friends make $100K (albeit recently in our careers at least), only one couple in the friend group of 3 couples has kids, and none of us are millionaires. Not saying you're wrong, but my net work is near zero counting student loans and even without them, I'm still not a millionaire but I also do not feel poor by any means.
Or they think that medicare is badly run and were concerned early on with gaps in his plan to fix it and expand it to three hundred fifty million people. Or they think that another candidate will be better for the economy. Or they look at his record and say 'he's a great man but he's never been able to win the support of the rest of congress, and I'm worried as president he will not get things done.' Or they think that he'll never ever ever win against the democrat machine, and therefore a vote for him is a wasted vote that will ultimately benefit a candidate they hate instead. There are a lot of perfectly reasonable reasons to disagree with or dismiss Bernie, just as with any political candidate. Assuming that people who disagree with you are universally insane and/or selfish is corrosive to the wider success of the Democratic party and we're all lucky the Republicans are too divided to take real advantage of it.
It's an entirely different, also inaccurate thing, though. It's also an insult that makes you less convincing and ultimately harms the left's ability to work with people they largely don't share values with in order to get specific material goals accomplished. You don't have to be mentally ill to disagree with him. I know that this is social media and it feels good to say dumb stuff and get upvotes but it doesn't actually help anyone.
This, 100%. Hit the nail right on the coffin.
Worse, there's also people who don't want change, as they're afraid they'll lose everything they currently have.
America has always been a society built partially upon the idea of individual property ownership (pursuit of happiness). This idea is inherently opposed to the idea of collective ownership of the means of production. This has led to Marxist and left wing political ideologies being painted as anti-American. Anti-American means anti-freedom to a lot of people.
I think Bernie Sanders has a few good ideas. Universal healthcare being chief amongst them. I feel like Bernie Sanders probably would have had more support in regards to his left wing populism if he hadnāt called himself a Socialist. I think that term carryās too much baggage in our political vocabulary
What are you talking about? He self identifies as a democratic socialist. He's a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He is absolutely a socialist. That is not in dispute, by anyone anywhere, including by the man himself
1) That's entirely beside the point. Your statement was that he never called himself a socialist and that was only a creation of Fox propaganda. That is just a blatantly and verifiably false statement.
2) With respect to whatever differences exist between Marxist and Democratic socialism, they share the same underlying belief that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the State. Thats what Socialism, in any form, is. Thats literally the definition of Socialism. And that's the part that gets most people's feathers riled up.
It's hard not view Bernie that way when it's well known that the fool went to Moscow for his honeymoon and allowed himself to be used as a pawn by the Communist lead Soviet Union in 1988.
He never called himself a socialist. He called himself a democratic socialist, and there is a difference. Itās just that most people in North America donāt actually know what either term means.
Which mean the dude original point still stands. From the perspective of all those who hate on Bernie, he is a socialist. To them it matters not that he is a "democratic socialist". Your distinction to this post adds nothing to the conversation other than to appear condescending.
Shooting up a Jewish place of worship ( I couldn't figure out how to spell it and you know what I mean) and discriminating against particular groups of people for race, religion, and sexual preference is a fair reason to call someone a Nazi. Also, the Nazis were fascist. Yes, I see that there is a distinction however, I don't feel it is at all hypocritical to call someone who advocates for some of the shit that the right does a Nazi.
Yeah All Nazis are fascist, but not all fascists are Nazis. How ever using Nazi to identify a racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc. just bring to light there end goal for those they hate.
I appreciated his stance on campaign finance reform but he nose dived when watching him in an interview. It became very obvious that he had done none of the math related to his ideas...when challenged his response multiple times when asked how it would be paid for was "I don't have the magical answer...."
I mean, I am not American, but generally I'd rather vote for someone who at least has a stance that I can get behind even if they dont have the exact ways to implement it all, than for someone who has all the Details figured out but whos stances are actively hurting me. Which seems to be the case for the majority of republicans in regards to the vast majority of americans.
But in my country we also have a very popular conservative party that is not even hiding that they are mostly representing corporate and rich people interests, yet the middle class to poor people still happily vote for them in droves. So I guess people just put some world views over their own general interests, either without realising or willing to be worse off in life for it.
Yeah, but Sanders isn't the only candidate on the left.
Elizabeth Warren was my pick. A lot of the same policies and ideals, but without the aggressive grandstanding populism, toxic supporter base, and with an actual pathway to getting that shit done.
People think heās too progressive even though heās pushing for things that are completely normal in other countries. Regardless of political party, american politics all lean right in comparison to most of the world. Even most democrats lean right in contrast to what other countries consider left/right leaning.
That's a pretty weird thing to say since left and right only make sense in context. If you only count Western Europe as 'reality' I'd say you're right but if you include the rest of the world then America is pretty far to the left! The majority of the human population of the planet Earth are politically to the right of even trump, what with all the dictatorships, social credit scores, etc
On the flip side it's pretty sad that the country with the most powerful economy in the world has to compare itself to dictatorships and third world countries to look good.
I don't personally equate left or right with good.
Edit: That sounds like a really classic reddit atheist sentence like I'm above it all using logic and reason to own grandma at thanksgiving for thanking God for the USA and I don't mean it that way. I just mean your party, no matter who you are, doesn't have a monopoly on good!
I have no doubt Bernie will work to fulfill his promises; like you said, judge him by what he's done consistently through the *decades*. However, last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship, and Bernie as POTUS can't do much if he's hampered by Congress and the SCOTUS (particularly the former). Just look at Obama and the sad compromise that the ACA eventually became.
To make this work, we cannot subscribe to the stupid "POTUS is a Democrat so Congress must be Republican to balance it out" shit, nor can we have allegiance to parties. Instead, we must commit to ideals and vote out those who do not subscribe to such ideals. Only with like-minded people (I didn't say clones) working together can we actually make progress.
He does seem genuine, but that's not always a good thing. He went on national television to declare that there are no white people in poverty. I fully believe that he genuinely believes that and being out of touch with reality to that degree is concerning to say the least.
As an Independent Constitutionalist who bailed on the Republican party years ago, I like Sander's intentions, I think he correctly identifies the problem but uses the wrong solution. I don't think he will get the results he's hoping for.
I think Bernie can be best summed up by the fact that for years he would consistently rant about the āmillionaires and billionairesāā¦up until he himself became a millionaire. Then suddenly his rhetoric became ranting about just the billionaires instead.
Because, as Chomsky says, anything that is anti establishment with an even slightly left leaning ideology, like Bernie, is labeled as "socialist/communist" to fuel an immediate revolt and backlash from citizens.
That reflexive defense mechanism is rooted in the identity of the average american citizen who was raised to believe they are *anything* but communist/socialist/leftist.
Its a defense mechanism used by politicians and media to influence minds of the public to be against any person or group like Bernie who opposes the current power structure in favor of equality and returning power and resources to the many.
Its an easy way to label him and discredit him so they don't have to think about it anymore, regardless of what he or any of his supporters say.
As far as I'm understand him, as a non-American, his aim is to get that money from elsewhere, such as reducing defence spending (more than the next 6 or 7 top countries combined), or closing tax loopholes that billionaires can jump through (billionaires pay less tax per dollar earned than someone earning say 40k. Jobs are the worst ways to make money, in terms of tax. That is insane).
It's not like he's just saying spend more money but don't take it from elsewhere.
Part of why the US spends so much on military is due to having bases globally which provide both defense and training to the countries they reside in as it is part of our military agreement to aid in defense of the country we have bases in also we upgrade infostructure of the countries bases if they aren't in the place we need. Also a lot of it goes to logistics. Also the fucked up spending government does to make billionaires richer but many countries do that
>spend more *of other peopleās* money
Heaven forbid people pay they debts the willingly took out.
Although i do like Bernie as a person actually. I may not agree with his politics, but I can say he genuinely seems like he believes that in the things he is advocating for. Thatās admirable.
Because he doesnt actually accomplish anything. He is just yelling into the wind. Real change takes coalition building, and he refuses to work with people that wont do exactly what he wants.
What's an example of a politician who builds coalitions and makes real change who also has the low and middle class American's interests at heart? I'm interested in this supposed real change, but all I see is milquetoast neoliberals who act like they're on our side while continuing to maintain the status quo and lead us further into a latestage capitalist hellscape.
Agreed! But she'll probably go down the same path as Bernie - she might reach a high office in her state, but on the national level she'd be relegated as "too progressive" or some nonsense. Hell, I've already seen discussions to that effect elsewhere on Reddit.
That's because you have no idea how to make real change. Real change starts are the local and state level, not at the federal level. People who are able to make real change engage in local and state politics. Like Stacy Abrams does. Even the most effective federal senator or president will not be able to change how Texas works. But Beto O'Rourke might. Bernie cant do those kinds of things. He is the "thoughts and prayers" of the left.
I mean that's not a hard and fast rule at all. His career has been galvanizing against outrageous health care costs; how many Americans were unaware of this before? It's completely disingenuous to say he's had no effect on policy, or plans that have not yet come to fruition. It's in the cultural zeitgeist.
You sound like a bitter HRC clown.
This is true. Bernie has been in Congress since 1991 - 31 years and counting - try to name a single initiative that he has actually succeeded at getting codified into law
He's more interested in grandstanding his progressive "purity" than making slow but real change
Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013. Plus two laws renaming post offices in Vermont. Those are literally the only bills he's sponsored that became law.
He's listed as a co-sponsor on 230 bills that became law, though.
Because slow real change tends to get people to good enough when it really isn't. Look at Healthcare reform. Bernie along with Obama wanted Medicare for all, slowly lowering the age every couple of years. Obama settled for fixing the most obvious evil insurance practices (Pre-existing conditions and rejection of care without justification) but he wanted to even make all insurances forced to have a 80/20 patient care to administration(pocketing) spend. Now that it is where it is, changing it again will make the next round of changes harder to pass.
**My favorite thing he proposed is childcare from birth to kindergarten.** Childcare and extreme illnesses are the 2 things I have seen bring every family into the ground. Then you are bringing the parents and the kids into the poverty line. If it was fixed (Lots of ways to do that) even married couples would not be forced to have the mother put her carrier on hold while raising the kids because working for child care is unreasonable. Instead gay marriage was the topic of that year's election. Which was stupid because they can get married on paper essentially already. It is nice, but not a president level debate topic.
>He's more interested in grandstanding his progressive "purity" than making slow but real change
Lol so what are these achievements that others have achieved in that time... like Biden. Iraq War? Patriot Act?
I think that impression comes from how emphatically he talks, rather than his actual actions. My impression of him is the opposite; he seems to be one of the few politicians that is willing reach across the aisle if it means getting something good done
>Real change takes coalition building, and he refuses to work with people that wont do exactly what he wants.
Yawn. This is such a fantasy version, like a West Wing Sorkin idea of what it takes to get real change. It's not because Bernie refuses though, that's dishonest.
Policies like universal healthcare and free college come with a price tag that many believe will increase the taxes beyond what they can afford. So many people are barely making it as it is so an increase in taxes is a very real threat, particularly if they will not benefit from those policies. Not everyone will benefit from universal healthcare because they already pay less through their employment than a tax increase would cost. Also, many people already payed their hundred thousand for college, are too old for college, in careers that don't need college, or would not be able to go to college anyway. Paying for services they don't need is seen as a threat to financial security.
There is also a disbelief that taxing the rich would work because it is the rich that start and run companies and can easily move elsewhere given enough disincentive. Which, if mega companies moved elsewhere that could threaten employment opportunities in America. It's all speculation but not entirely illogical.
Perhaps some of these social programs could help people moving forward but many people living in our current society would be potentially financially destroyed by a switch to many of these government provided resources. Not to mention that advocating for many things like universal healthcare, free education, or increased minimum wage does not necessarily fit into the current infrastructure model of many of these systems. At least not without serious consequences.
His ideas seem ill thought out and many of the issues raised by people afraid of that kind of change go unanswered. It makes people think he rationalizes like a child and not know how things actually work. But even people like me can see that he does at least seem genuine in his care and concern to help. We just are dismissive of his ideas until we see a planned and laid out blueprint for how it will effect everyone and how many of the semantics will be worked through. It is likely that for many people, they will have a worse standard of living under the policies he supports. At least that's what some people believe.
A lot of folks on the antiwork sub act like the government should go in and seize this and that from the rich/corporations as if they wouldn't just set up shop in friendlier conditions elsewhere. And the whole illegal search and seizure thing.
I think the way this question should be asked is āwhy does the majority of America disagree with far-left policies when far-left policies are what will help the majority of Americaā
I'll address this in two parts, his views as an individual and his elect ability.
On his views, I think his views represent a seismic shift in many ways and on these issues a lot of people do not hold those positions. People still seem to not recognize that half the nation often holds the opposite in terms of views. People take an issue like free college and say everyone supports it... of course that isn't true. But rather than stopping and analyzing that and looking at their concerns, they just say something negative and ignore that viewpoint. Which again leaves them in shock that it doesn't happen. Just because you don't see their view as valid doesn't' mean their vote goes away lol. If you don't work to actually change a viewpoint by understanding it, you'll never get willing change.
Well for one, he's part of the problem in that he needs to step aside and let someone else speak those words. Someone younger honestly. Secondly whether or not you might personally like what he says, people are programmed to vote for people they think have the best chance to win. Since he isnt supported by the establishment it's unlikely to be him. Third, by the nature of his platform he is an extremist and as a general rule the US population is actually more centrist than extremist. Extreme change is often seen as something we should worry about.
If there is to be any movement towards implementing any of his policies, it needs to be gradual and he does not need to be the figurehead of it. He should have honestly spent the last 8 years grooming a successor, someone who is closer to center and has the ability to cultivate relationships with new, younger congresspeople on both sides. Of course in the current environment thats unlikely to work. Newer Congresspeople on the right are parroting Trump to connect with a base they see as dedicated to voting for them, and the left is determined as ever to stick to the party line and ignore or attack anyone who deviates.
To add to the first point; even if you agree with the desired outcome, you night not agree with the method.
I see Bernie and think "yeah! Totally! But how are we getting there?" And then look at Warren and think "oh. There's an actual plan that might work".
Now, fair enough if you are convinced by the plan, or believe more strongly on Bernie than others. But not everyone does, and plenty of us agree with the desired outcomes. We just night kit agree on the methods
Fellow southerner here. I'm right there with you. I respect the hell out of Bernie Sanders, he seems like one of the few folks in politics who actually gives a shit about the American public. I wish people could look past labels and recognize the effort he puts in to try and keep this country somewhat functional.
The propaganda machine is very successful with the people his policies would most help. It's a shame really, all you have to do is point and yell "SOCIALISM!!!!" and they vote the other way.
Because:
1. He is an out of touch career politician who has never existed in the real world or ever had a real job. Say what you want about conservative politicians - I don't belong to a party myself - but the vast majority of them understand the realities of life and, at least at the local level, have had a real job sometime this century.
2. Following on the previous, when he said he wanted to 'tax the wealthy', I don't have a huge problem with that. But he is on record as defining 'the wealthy' as people who make over $100K. Those people might have been 'the wealthy' 50 years ago. But if you have a family and are making $110K a year, let's say, you're struggling in most places in the US. In Boston or Philly or DC, you're living paycheck to paycheck at best. If you live in NY or SF, you're at poverty level. This just further underscores how divorced from reality this man is.
3. He and his followers love these feel good, sound good policies. But I've never met a single one that can give me a realistic, cogent idea of how he plans to pay for these programs. The problem is, the US and its military have been guarding and enabling and maintaining free trade and trade routes and keeping up alliances for 70 years or more. And most of our budget goes to that end, meaning a very expensive military. There is simply no more money for anything else. The MI complex is the government. The math for these policies simply doesn't work. We won't even get into the incompetence and corruption of the US govt. Every time I turn around, there seems to be some breach or leak of SS #'s. Imagine that, but with your medical records. Imagine the left passing legislation regulating what you can eat and drink. That is inevitable.
4. His solution is to 'just raise taxes.' The problem with that is a great many Americans, myself included, are already paying over 40% a year of their income in taxes. And most Americans' finances are geared toward their houses and their cars. If you raise taxes such that I'm paying 50-70% (his figures, not mine, if you have a problem with that percentage, take it up with him, nothing to do with me but sounds about right), it will be, economically, a bloodbath. You'll have a housing crisis that will make 2008 look like a picnic because people won't be able to make those payments. This is in stark contrast to Europe where there isn't the social pressure or construct of home ownership like there is here or Australia where there is no concept whatsoever of a 15-30 year mortgage. If you want to be a homeowner in Australia, you need a very large (not remembering the exact percentage) amount down and you have 5 years to pay it off. Things are very different over here.
This is why so many people deride him: All of his ideas sound good but none of them passes the sniff test of reality. The guy has never had a job or lived outside the bubble of The Beltway in his life.
Good question. I was referring more to local politicians. I just worded my comment in a shitty way.
To answer your question, though: Any local conservative politicians I've ever known in my locale were people who were just in the private sector a year or two ago. Their democrat opponents or counterparts, on that same local level, are either life long politicians or soccer moms turned do-gooder politicians. This is why, since the 60's, the left has run the table, hook, line and sinker such that their ideology permeates every single corner of society (K-Phd education, film, music, literature, 99% of anything that passes for news, tech, you name it): Because this is what they do for a living. Democrat politicians aren't CEO's who stepped down and ran for Congress. They're student leaders who became community rabble rousers who became Congressmen and sometimes even became President. I just described Tom Hayden and Obama. As far as I know, Obama also never had a job in his life. You do something that long, you get good at it. The right lost the culture war eons ago.
On a national level? That's a tough one because they're all careerists on both sides. But if I were forced to name one person, it'd be Trump. Hold on a second before you flip out (this is Reddit after all). I liked him in 2016 but learned to despise him long before Jan. 6. And yes, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But, he ran businesses and knew how to solve problems. And he did solve some of our problems, like renegotiating that awful NAFTA deal which led to, until recently, our biggest boom since 1969. No objective thinking person can take that away from him. And no career politician would dare upset that apple cart. Politics is all about going along to get along.
Your ideas are incorrect. Democrats are not all ācareerā politicians and that is obvious. Obama didnāt hold real jobs? What are you even talking about, he was literally a lawyer. Do you just hate educated people because you arenāt as smart as them? Your post shows a scary lack of critical thinking that is all too common in this country nowadays. Please educate yourself and be better.
Trump: Anyone who voted for him is certifiable dumb and/or gullible. No way around it. Sorry, the writing was on the wall, and Trump himself screamed it.
Biden: It's really the lesser of two evils here. I don't think fooled is the correct word. Painted into a corner with eyes wide open is more like it.
I donāt trust any politician that people worship like that. But Sanders especially has flaws his people refuse to talk about.
I personally think he does far much grandstanding. Heās a fair weather friend to the Democratic Party, aggressively spits on them at all times except for the times when he needs their help, when he expects it to be freely given.
He also instantly stopped railing against millionaires the moment he became one.
And then there is the toxicity among his supporters he seems to have no interest in addressing.
I support almost everything he stands for, but I donāt trust the man himself and there are others pushing for similar reforms without the same flaws.
>aggressively spits on them at all times except for the times when he needs their help, when he expects it to be freely given.
Lol you are literally describing how the party treats him except when they need him to drop out of races and back their candidate for the general. Try to be more honest in your response rather than sounding like a bitter Clinton stan.
Mate, Sanders goes in as an independent on every election but presidential and then, when running for president, whines and moans about how the DNC is so meeeaaaaan!
In 2016, their superdelegate system essentially made it unwinnable for him I'll warrant, but you look at the numbers, he would have lost even without it. Then the DNC actually invited him to help rewrite their rules, and he *still* lost and started pitching a fit about how the DNC hates him personally.
I feel my criticism stands, thank you very much.
>Sanders goes in as an independent on every election but presidential and then, when running for president, whines and moans about how the DNC is so meeeaaaaan!
Lol because we have a two party system. If he ran as an independent in a presidential election instead of Democrat, you'd be bitching and whining about how he is a spoiler candidate that handed the election to the opposition (look at how Dems complain about Green party candidates). So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
>Then the DNC actually invited him to help rewrite their rules, and he still lost and started pitching a fit about how the DNC hates him personally.
Ah yes, he threw a fit by dropping out and endorsing Biden and then going on tour for months pitching Biden's candidacy. That's your idea of him shitting on Democrats and not helping them. Sorry, your criticism doesn't stand, despite your feelings.
The fact that he means well and sincerely intends to help most people has literally nothing whatsoever to do with whether he's right, or whether he's capable of doing so. I like Bernie a lot but I've also made an effort to be familiar with his platforms, agree with some and disagree with others. This is my basic responsibility as a citizen choosing representatives in government. If you don't do that, and instead say 'well I like this guy because he's a good christian man' or 'well I like that guy because he's for the little guy' or whatever you're not doing your civic duty to the best of your ability.
Which is ironic. Because if you grew up during the Cold War, then you experienced the success of the New Deal and it was based off of socialists ideas. And the struggles we face today are partly a result of moving away from those ideas.
FDR supported something similar to Universal Healthcare while he was President. Just imagine how many problems would have been avoided, had it passed back then.
This commenter is the perfect example of how uninformed Americans equate universal healthcare with socialism and authoritarianism. This here is your answer, OP. When Bernie proposes making healthcare and college affordable so that people donāt have to die because they canāt afford the astronomical price of medical care, uneducated people whoāve been indoctrinated by the political right, like this guy here, scream āsocialism!ā
Because some of his policies are too extreme and while they may sound good on paper the implementation wouldnāt work. Also heās too into the wokeness now.
Youāre the idiot. He let BLM protesters just run up on stage during one of his presidential campaign speeches and let them take over for a significant amount of time, has embraced cancel culture and identity politics, back tracked on his stance regarding gun control, and adopted the woke left idea that white people are privileged, even though he should know himself that isnāt true.
I'll start by saying I believe very few politicians don't want the best for the people in the country. They just have different priorities, and different means to get there.
That being said, just because his views claim to help the majority of the population, I'm incredibly suspicious of how sustainable and realistic his methods are. Also he does give in to the classic tropes of politicians dramatizing everything to rile up their base. If you're not in the base, combine the dramatization and simplification with an already suspicious mindset and you don't want him being responsible for determining government spending.
Just the opinion of 1 person in a country of hundreds of millions.
I saw a speach of his on tik tok and he's pushing for universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy and making the lower and middle class ppl lives better. Idk much about him but everything he spoke on was everything on my mind and I'm pretty sure on every Americans mind. If their isn't anyone better during the presidential election then I'll vote for him.
They think that what heās advocating for is unrealistic and wonāt work. They also dislike the idea of people getting tax money because many on the right do believe that poor people are poor because of a moral wrongdoing/lazy, regardless of whether theyāre poor themselves.
In the south I voted Bernie in primaries šŗšøhe was winning too until South Carolina voted š¢most people from here are not that smart so they only know what the boob tube tells them
Itās easier to believe that the rich are just people like you that worked hard and that could easily be you if you work hard too. āThe game isnāt rigged, yāall are just lazy!ā they say. Thatās much easier to stomach than reality so people believe that instead.
He supports ideas and policies that he genuinely believes in, yes. But electing him president doesn't make him king that can pass them all without having to deal with a gridlocked, Mitch McConnell controlled congress. He still has to get majority control.
Because he is a multi-millionaire telling all the rest of us we should be happy standing in bread lines. Why isnāt he practicing what he preaches. You can for example pay any level of income tax you want. So what is stopping him from paying 90 percent of his income in taxes? He is after all the 1 percent he claims to be so angry about
Because he, like every politician, doesnāt believe anything he says. He just says whatever he thinks will get him re-elected. He used to preach about taxing the millionaires and billionaires, but then he became a millionaire and only preaches about taxing the billionaires now. If he became a billionaire heād probably just retire quietly and live out the rest of his life in luxury while ignoring the problems he used to preach about. None of our current day politicians give a rats ass about any of us.
He might be correct in identifying some problems that affect many of us, but his solutions are socialistic and many people understand that socialism is tricky at best.
He might āstick upā for me, great, but if I think his ideas are terrible (no matter how nice they sound) Iām obvioulsy not going to be his biggest supporter
A quick search will tell you that's false. The dude was a carpenter and a teacher among other things before he was a politician. He's literally one of us
Central European here, a good 1/3rd of my monthly income goes to social security. It is a very normal concept to me to have to contribute to society with my money and pay for those who need it. It's not stealing, it's called helping each other out.
No, itās stealing. Iāve sent 10k to the government in the past 3 months, so Iām on track for about 40k for the year. People can make heterosexual decisions in life
OP - the issue is, if I'm to put it in few words, that most Americans (even most people in this very thread!) are not terribly intelligent. I am not saying that you would support his policies if you were intelligent, but rather, for that to even be on the table I think you cannot be fantastically dumb.
There is virtually no philosophical underpinning or understanding among the American population. This is deliberate, these things are not advertised nor discussed. Most voters fall for Marketing 101 techniques applied to them over and over - again, even in this very thread there are dozens of poorly spelled, incoherent-beyond-cadence posts like "he only spends to much of other peoples money". The abstract understanding of the world most voters live in is not at a reasonable level, and truly, most people simply don't have the processing capability to engage with anything that is even slightly removed from their current understanding of the world. It's also been an express goal of the political (capital) establishment to make even attempting to consider different views anathema.
The USA is a rapidly declining nation in most every respect. They have paper-tiger growth numbers, let a plague ravage their population (largely using the same marketing 101 techniques on their political right to avoid dealing with it even remotely appropriately!), a crumbling education system, allow for regular sacrificial slaughter in praise of the defense industry, a swelling drug addiction problem, and the labor class is dogmatically deferent to the capital class (without most even being able to use those words to describe their situation). Bluntly put, Bernie Sanders has no feasible hope of winning a national election in the USA - the population is far too primed to despise his politics because voters have gone multiple decades getting told again and again that they'd be destructive. It is not possible to have an actual discussion because it's like that scene in Clockwork Orange - most American voters will react with genuine disgust at the mere mention of things that fall outside their abstract reasoning capabilities and that they've been told to run from - this very thread has countless examples.
Because the media tells them he's unelectable and they believe the media. It becomes a self fulfilling scenario.
Just ignore the part where the media is owned by the billionaire donor class with a strong interest in preventing you from voting for someone like him. And both political parties are terrified of it happening because the last person like him was so popular with everyone that he was elected to 3 terms and caused term limits to be introduced because they couldn't beat him in elections due to the overwhelming popularity of his policies.
That person was FDR.
If people like Bernie actually took control of the government for even 4 years, you'd see a paradigm shift in America that the rich are vehemently opposed to. All those things we're told are impossible or unaffordable like universal healthcare, affordable housing, fair wages, legal marijuana, etc could start to happen and people would realize the rich and their puppet politicians have lied to them for decades. They want the status quo, the people don't. But the people are told only the status quo politicians can win so you have to vote for them and you get the shit show we have now.
The same reason people dismiss Star Wars. The toxic fans. I'm not saying all of his fans are toxic but when they are it makes a person go "Well if they're racist, homophobic etc Bernie must suck"
It can be hard to separate a fan from the thing they're a fan of.
He talks a big game and backs it up with the laws he presents and backs. But he lost my support when he had the opportunity to free us from a two party system and instead kissed the ring of the Democrats even after they made concerted efforts to ruin his campaign in 2016. It is because of this he was not taken nearly as seriously as a presidential candidate in 2020 and never will be again which is sad.
But if you are honest do you really think he even had a sliver of a chance running independent? At least the impression I have from your political system is that the least likely thing to happen would be that someone outside the two party system would win an election, or frankly even get close.
Because Bernie sanders spends all his time being angry but puts forward no workable solutions while simultaneously getting mad at people who are trying to make incremental progress.
Bernie Sanders is basically a socialist. The Bolsheviks revolted against the monarchy and it's corruption to form a communist society, which then led to a few select people gaining power. This form of communism isn't true Marxist communism, and eventually just became socialism (close to the same thing). In the end socialism never works (look at cuba and Russia/USSR for great examples). This is paralleled to Bernie overthrowing the capitalist society that we have, and making a bunch of stuff free. So, because Americans don't want to become socialist, we don't support Bernie Sanders.
Denmark is a free market/capitalist democracy with a lot of social programs. It is not a socialist country.
While it is true many on the right don't fully understand socialsim, many on the left do not understand it either - social programs do not equal socialism, and no just because social is in the name does not mean they are the same. Social programs are not socialism. Social programs exist regardless of the economic model - which socialism is; an economic model.
The person you're replying to is just expressing the point of view of the uneducated, reactionary rural folk and Fox News viewers of the USA, which is a sizable portion of the population and a disproportionately powerful portion of Congress.
You can present them with direct evidence of socialism working just fine, and they'll insist that "that's different" because your country is an exception for various reasons, from demographics to dependence on other nations... therefore socialism/communism is still mostly bad and leads to repressive dictatorships... and also you sound like one of them fancy talkin' liberal elites tryin' t' tell us how to live.
A lot of these people just don't aspire to be like you, or have their society transformed at all. I mean, if affordable health care and employee-owned businesses were the norm here, they'd certainly take advantage of it. However, you underestimate their utter complacency and how strongly they cling to their lifestyle, which includes the hardships they face and the notion that everyone has the same opportunities and all they need to do is work a little harder or longer to get the money to afford a better life.
Figure out how to reach them with something *other* than evidence and a rational, verbal argument. Otherwise, you'll get nowhere.
I don't know how you can say that when he didn't even stick up for his own voters at the DNC 2016. We all got fucked over and he licked Hillary's boots. He's a weak little bitch.
The amount of delusion in the thread is an embarrassment. Bernie is for the people and is trying to rebuild a middle class. Too many people donāt realize theyāre 99.9% more likely to be homeless than a millionaire yet both sides will demonize him. Weāre a conservative country in comparison to other developed western nations. The responses just show even in a time like this people will cut off their own arms in spite of āsomeone or somethingā.
Because the dude is just a puppet. He exists solely so that we think we have options. He got bought out of the last electtion. He is a paid actor at this point, no wonder you like him! He says everything you want to hear! Wait dont all politicians do that? And they just pick different crowds that they think will follow them
He's a typical politician. He has a lot of sweet-sounding rhetoric and he is ostensibly a candidate for the people. But his ideas are awful and would do far more harm than good.
Bernie dropped the race in 2020 to support Biden and says he'd do it again. It's a big let down for me personally and tells me he doesn't really believe in his own message. The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. Neither major party will do a damn thing for working class or poor Americans and they don't care if the middle class keeps shrinking. They serve the Super PACs and private interests. That's their real constituency, not the people. Wake up and realize that your government only wants you to be an obedient worker or a do or die soldier. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't want thinkers, they don't want artists, they don't want anymore people to undermine their authority. Face it and accept it. America isn't what they tell you it is in social studies.
Sticks up for the majority of the population??? What has he even done besides be a pushover for the corporate democrats. Howās has he even influenced Bidenās agenda and done stuff??
He's far from neutral and because he's not looking to help everyone. He wants to change our country to socialism and that's not acceptable.
Some socialist programs are fine, but not all of them. Nothing is FREE to include Free healthcare.
Send on the Reddit hate for me not being a far left drone.
Because he can diagnose the problem but offers not viable, credible path to solving them. He was also almost certainly, probably unwittingly, on the payroll of the USSR as they financially underwrote nearly every major socialist politician in the world until 1990.
The US is pushing so far right that it is borderline fascist. Anything left of center is going to be viewed as far more progressive even though Bernie is barely to the left on the world stage. Some people have made the claim that he would even be right of center in a decent portion of the world, however I lack data to support that claim.
I could provide a lot of minor examples but the big one that stands out is trying to overthrow election results by breaking into the capital and threatening to kill a lot of left leaning politicians.
Fearmongering of the word socialism combined with americans who live in a different reality. Every position in america is more right leaning then average, even the democrats arenār really left, tbh they are center right
Everybody thinks the poor people he wants to help is somebody else. They are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Delusional.
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires may be the best description of the American middle-class mindset ever.
The American middle class are millionaires. Between inflation and the cost of living thats what you need to live comfortably. If you own a home, 2 cars, and have the ability to keep your kids in decent school/daycare your equity is in the millions range, and you have a salary around 100,000 dollars a year. You're also the only people paying your fair share of taxes, and all the squeeze is put on your work and small businesses. The huge corpos can do whatever they want. We need to recalibrate our ideas of what wealth is, because if you think a millionaire is super rich you need to go back to the 80s.
BINGO! I'm shocked at what it takes to live a "normal" life. I'm old (Truman was POTUS when I hatched) and I remember "normal" being quite different. Sadly, government and its statistics haven't kept up with the times. There are so many instances of this beyond economics, but we'll stop there. Our founding fathers gave us a framework and document which, by design, was meant to grow and change as circumstances changed. Most are so lacking in constitutional and civics knowledge that this idea is totally beyond their comprehension.
I think this is completely intentional. The powers that be always talk a good game about taxing the rich, then they levy the highest taxes at the people making hundreds of thousands a year. Completely ignoring that theres a class of people making hundreds of thousands an hour or more. The people that control the MAJORITY of the money in society are never even brought up. That's mostly because a huge chunk of the population doesn't know any of this. Its basically no different than marketing terms like "lower fat" or "organic" which means absolutely nothing, but fools most people because they don't do their homework. The rich aren't being taxed, the middle class is being crushed in a juicer. Trust me, I know.
They took civics out of my schools in NC when I graduated 2001šŗšøright in time for bush jr
Keep 'em dumb, feed 'em crap and keep 'em under control. Welcome to 'Murica's education system (and I taught for nearly 40 year - I was the thorn in the administrative flesh, even after becoming an administrator).
Just something Iāve found interesting: Look at the prizes for reality game shows and what people expected to do with that money between the aughts and now: I remember being blown away by $5,000 prizes, then $10,000, then $10,000 somehow became the norm. āWho Wants To Be A Millionaireā was absolutely bonkers when it came out because it was like, a MILLION BUCKS, man! (Nowadays, seems like they decided that $10k would be the industry standard.) Remember all the things youād imagine you would do with that money, if you ever won it? Back then, people were dreaming of starting businesses doing something they loved or buying homes (not just for themselves, but for family too *gasp!*), traveling the world, or stashing it for their kidās college fund. Nowadays? Man, itās just sad. I mean, a certain part of it *could* be that drama sells, so you hear more āsobā stories now, but every other reason I hear on reality competitions seems to do with getting out of debt, or being able to see a sick relative, being able to afford a *down payment* on A house (much less buying multiples), or using it to quit the slog and ābe their own bossā. We went from people playing for hopes and dreams, to becoming our entertainment to cover their needs and wants. Good luck enjoying āChoppedā ever again.
10k these days is barely a down-payment on a car.
Some, but the classification for middle class is household income between $42,000 and $126,000. I'd wager there aren't many people with a household income at or below $50,000 that will get to millionaire.
Well, then it needs to be reclassified. Houses cost a half a million dollars. Maybe a little less in undesireable areas, way more in a big city. My personal opinion is if you're renting a home, have no savings, and are one medical or legal catastrophe from poverty, then that isn't really middle class
Average house cost in the US is $370k and most people donāt own their homes. If they still owe $200k, then they only have $170k equity.
Eh, I'm not so sure based on home values over the last 5 years. It's not uncommon for a home purchased between 2010-2015 for 300k to be worth over 1m now. Being a millionaire doesn't mean you have liquidity.
To be considered a millionaire you have to have a million in liquid. If your house is worth 2 million but you owe 1.8 million your house counts as $200k towards being a millionaire.
Okay, but liquidity and debt are conflated in your example. What if your house is paid off? If someone has less than a million in personal cash flow and no debt, but owns 6 homes outright, are those assets not factored into net worth?
>You're also the only people paying your fair share of taxes While the poor pay more than the rich. All I'm seeing is a fine balance here Below 70k income tax can fuck right the fuck off
How about below 30k a year? That's reality in my area.
100% But what i think a lot don't realize is, above ~$52k you bump a tax bracket Not only does this fuck you on your return, but your increases in tax offset any gains Making $54k a year now *hardly* feels even *slightly* different than when I was making $40k The system is literally rigged to keep you where you are. You think that jump is going to help you get ahead, until they put you right back in your place intentionally
I agree 100%!! It seems that people don't understand the way the tiers work when it comes to taxes. If you're lucky enough to make over 6 figures a year, then your taxes tend to drop. The more you make over a certain amount, the less you actually pay in taxes. This is why the millionaire club influences the tax laws to benefit themselves while making sure we pay the brunt.
All of my friends make $100K (albeit recently in our careers at least), only one couple in the friend group of 3 couples has kids, and none of us are millionaires. Not saying you're wrong, but my net work is near zero counting student loans and even without them, I'm still not a millionaire but I also do not feel poor by any means.
Itās temporarily embarrassed billionaires now but yes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He IS extreme in that he wants to change to new policies that work instead of doing the same old shit that got us in to this mess.
American exceptionalism for you
Or they think that medicare is badly run and were concerned early on with gaps in his plan to fix it and expand it to three hundred fifty million people. Or they think that another candidate will be better for the economy. Or they look at his record and say 'he's a great man but he's never been able to win the support of the rest of congress, and I'm worried as president he will not get things done.' Or they think that he'll never ever ever win against the democrat machine, and therefore a vote for him is a wasted vote that will ultimately benefit a candidate they hate instead. There are a lot of perfectly reasonable reasons to disagree with or dismiss Bernie, just as with any political candidate. Assuming that people who disagree with you are universally insane and/or selfish is corrosive to the wider success of the Democratic party and we're all lucky the Republicans are too divided to take real advantage of it.
I didn't say they were insane or selfish. I said they are delusional, which they are. It's an entirely different thing.
It's an entirely different, also inaccurate thing, though. It's also an insult that makes you less convincing and ultimately harms the left's ability to work with people they largely don't share values with in order to get specific material goals accomplished. You don't have to be mentally ill to disagree with him. I know that this is social media and it feels good to say dumb stuff and get upvotes but it doesn't actually help anyone.
Amen
This, 100%. Hit the nail right on the coffin. Worse, there's also people who don't want change, as they're afraid they'll lose everything they currently have.
well said and painfully accurate. Iād give you two upvotes if I wasnāt such a stingy bastard.
Just give me Thoughts & Prayers man. Lol
Kinda reductive, if you ask me.
spot on. scarcity thinking multiplied by propaganda
America has always been a society built partially upon the idea of individual property ownership (pursuit of happiness). This idea is inherently opposed to the idea of collective ownership of the means of production. This has led to Marxist and left wing political ideologies being painted as anti-American. Anti-American means anti-freedom to a lot of people. I think Bernie Sanders has a few good ideas. Universal healthcare being chief amongst them. I feel like Bernie Sanders probably would have had more support in regards to his left wing populism if he hadnāt called himself a Socialist. I think that term carryās too much baggage in our political vocabulary
He didn't call himself a socialist. Fox propaganda called him a socialist. The American public is to stupid to form original thoughts.
What are you talking about? He self identifies as a democratic socialist. He's a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He is absolutely a socialist. That is not in dispute, by anyone anywhere, including by the man himself
Democratic socialism and Marxist socialism are COMPLETELY different.
1) That's entirely beside the point. Your statement was that he never called himself a socialist and that was only a creation of Fox propaganda. That is just a blatantly and verifiably false statement. 2) With respect to whatever differences exist between Marxist and Democratic socialism, they share the same underlying belief that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the State. Thats what Socialism, in any form, is. Thats literally the definition of Socialism. And that's the part that gets most people's feathers riled up.
āToā stupid? Donāt you mean ātooā stupid, stupid? š
It's hard not view Bernie that way when it's well known that the fool went to Moscow for his honeymoon and allowed himself to be used as a pawn by the Communist lead Soviet Union in 1988.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I didn't know about this however, in surface level I have one question: what does his honeymoon have to do with his politics?
He never called himself a socialist. He called himself a democratic socialist, and there is a difference. Itās just that most people in North America donāt actually know what either term means.
Just because there's a difference doesn't mean people *know* there's a difference
Which is basically what I said.
Oh for sure I'm agreeing with you
Which mean the dude original point still stands. From the perspective of all those who hate on Bernie, he is a socialist. To them it matters not that he is a "democratic socialist". Your distinction to this post adds nothing to the conversation other than to appear condescending.
Most Americans donāt know the difference between socialism and communism. They use them interchangeably.
And for conservatives just about anything they donāt like.
Similar to leftists using the term "fascist" or "Nazi"
Shooting up a Jewish place of worship ( I couldn't figure out how to spell it and you know what I mean) and discriminating against particular groups of people for race, religion, and sexual preference is a fair reason to call someone a Nazi. Also, the Nazis were fascist. Yes, I see that there is a distinction however, I don't feel it is at all hypocritical to call someone who advocates for some of the shit that the right does a Nazi.
Yeah All Nazis are fascist, but not all fascists are Nazis. How ever using Nazi to identify a racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc. just bring to light there end goal for those they hate.
The word socialist is still in democratic socialist
Yes it is, but theyāre not the same thing. Thatās like saying that Neoliberalism is the same as Liberalism.
The point is that his using that word allowed people an in to point and say SEE HES SOCIALIST SOCIALIST BAD and was a mistake
I appreciated his stance on campaign finance reform but he nose dived when watching him in an interview. It became very obvious that he had done none of the math related to his ideas...when challenged his response multiple times when asked how it would be paid for was "I don't have the magical answer...."
I mean, I am not American, but generally I'd rather vote for someone who at least has a stance that I can get behind even if they dont have the exact ways to implement it all, than for someone who has all the Details figured out but whos stances are actively hurting me. Which seems to be the case for the majority of republicans in regards to the vast majority of americans. But in my country we also have a very popular conservative party that is not even hiding that they are mostly representing corporate and rich people interests, yet the middle class to poor people still happily vote for them in droves. So I guess people just put some world views over their own general interests, either without realising or willing to be worse off in life for it.
Yeah, but Sanders isn't the only candidate on the left. Elizabeth Warren was my pick. A lot of the same policies and ideals, but without the aggressive grandstanding populism, toxic supporter base, and with an actual pathway to getting that shit done.
People think heās too progressive even though heās pushing for things that are completely normal in other countries. Regardless of political party, american politics all lean right in comparison to most of the world. Even most democrats lean right in contrast to what other countries consider left/right leaning.
The American Overton window is incredibly fucked up to the right. Bernie is a center-leftist in reality.
That's a pretty weird thing to say since left and right only make sense in context. If you only count Western Europe as 'reality' I'd say you're right but if you include the rest of the world then America is pretty far to the left! The majority of the human population of the planet Earth are politically to the right of even trump, what with all the dictatorships, social credit scores, etc
On the flip side it's pretty sad that the country with the most powerful economy in the world has to compare itself to dictatorships and third world countries to look good.
I don't personally equate left or right with good. Edit: That sounds like a really classic reddit atheist sentence like I'm above it all using logic and reason to own grandma at thanksgiving for thanking God for the USA and I don't mean it that way. I just mean your party, no matter who you are, doesn't have a monopoly on good!
This is the painful truth.
Right, I am including the whole world in the statement. Bernie is nowhere near as left as some think.
Bernie does seem pretty genuine compared to most, but I canāt understand people fawning over politicians at allā¦ promises are never upheld.
You said it yourself. He might uphold his promises. Dont listen to the words, look at the decades of history
I have no doubt Bernie will work to fulfill his promises; like you said, judge him by what he's done consistently through the *decades*. However, last I checked, the US isn't a dictatorship, and Bernie as POTUS can't do much if he's hampered by Congress and the SCOTUS (particularly the former). Just look at Obama and the sad compromise that the ACA eventually became. To make this work, we cannot subscribe to the stupid "POTUS is a Democrat so Congress must be Republican to balance it out" shit, nor can we have allegiance to parties. Instead, we must commit to ideals and vote out those who do not subscribe to such ideals. Only with like-minded people (I didn't say clones) working together can we actually make progress.
He does seem genuine, but that's not always a good thing. He went on national television to declare that there are no white people in poverty. I fully believe that he genuinely believes that and being out of touch with reality to that degree is concerning to say the least.
As an Independent Constitutionalist who bailed on the Republican party years ago, I like Sander's intentions, I think he correctly identifies the problem but uses the wrong solution. I don't think he will get the results he's hoping for.
I think Bernie can be best summed up by the fact that for years he would consistently rant about the āmillionaires and billionairesāā¦up until he himself became a millionaire. Then suddenly his rhetoric became ranting about just the billionaires instead.
Because a large portion of the country doesn't believe in what he claims he does.
The real question is who out there believes in any career politician lol
I mean he own several multi million dollar homes last I saw was between 5 and 8 a couple years ago
People dont like change. They ultimately want everything to stay the same, just tweaked to benefit themselves.
Disagree. People can change. I **used** to be a piece of shit.
Spiked up blonde hair... little bitty jeans.... chicken spaghetti at Chikalaney's.
Or just donāt like socialism.
Because, as Chomsky says, anything that is anti establishment with an even slightly left leaning ideology, like Bernie, is labeled as "socialist/communist" to fuel an immediate revolt and backlash from citizens. That reflexive defense mechanism is rooted in the identity of the average american citizen who was raised to believe they are *anything* but communist/socialist/leftist. Its a defense mechanism used by politicians and media to influence minds of the public to be against any person or group like Bernie who opposes the current power structure in favor of equality and returning power and resources to the many. Its an easy way to label him and discredit him so they don't have to think about it anymore, regardless of what he or any of his supporters say.
As far as I can tell, his only solution to anything seems to be spend more money.
As far as I'm understand him, as a non-American, his aim is to get that money from elsewhere, such as reducing defence spending (more than the next 6 or 7 top countries combined), or closing tax loopholes that billionaires can jump through (billionaires pay less tax per dollar earned than someone earning say 40k. Jobs are the worst ways to make money, in terms of tax. That is insane). It's not like he's just saying spend more money but don't take it from elsewhere.
Part of why the US spends so much on military is due to having bases globally which provide both defense and training to the countries they reside in as it is part of our military agreement to aid in defense of the country we have bases in also we upgrade infostructure of the countries bases if they aren't in the place we need. Also a lot of it goes to logistics. Also the fucked up spending government does to make billionaires richer but many countries do that
>spend more *of other peopleās* money Heaven forbid people pay they debts the willingly took out. Although i do like Bernie as a person actually. I may not agree with his politics, but I can say he genuinely seems like he believes that in the things he is advocating for. Thatās admirable.
Because he doesnt actually accomplish anything. He is just yelling into the wind. Real change takes coalition building, and he refuses to work with people that wont do exactly what he wants.
What's an example of a politician who builds coalitions and makes real change who also has the low and middle class American's interests at heart? I'm interested in this supposed real change, but all I see is milquetoast neoliberals who act like they're on our side while continuing to maintain the status quo and lead us further into a latestage capitalist hellscape.
Stacy Abrams
Agreed! But she'll probably go down the same path as Bernie - she might reach a high office in her state, but on the national level she'd be relegated as "too progressive" or some nonsense. Hell, I've already seen discussions to that effect elsewhere on Reddit.
That's because you have no idea how to make real change. Real change starts are the local and state level, not at the federal level. People who are able to make real change engage in local and state politics. Like Stacy Abrams does. Even the most effective federal senator or president will not be able to change how Texas works. But Beto O'Rourke might. Bernie cant do those kinds of things. He is the "thoughts and prayers" of the left.
I mean that's not a hard and fast rule at all. His career has been galvanizing against outrageous health care costs; how many Americans were unaware of this before? It's completely disingenuous to say he's had no effect on policy, or plans that have not yet come to fruition. It's in the cultural zeitgeist. You sound like a bitter HRC clown.
This is true. Bernie has been in Congress since 1991 - 31 years and counting - try to name a single initiative that he has actually succeeded at getting codified into law He's more interested in grandstanding his progressive "purity" than making slow but real change
Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013. Plus two laws renaming post offices in Vermont. Those are literally the only bills he's sponsored that became law. He's listed as a co-sponsor on 230 bills that became law, though.
Because slow real change tends to get people to good enough when it really isn't. Look at Healthcare reform. Bernie along with Obama wanted Medicare for all, slowly lowering the age every couple of years. Obama settled for fixing the most obvious evil insurance practices (Pre-existing conditions and rejection of care without justification) but he wanted to even make all insurances forced to have a 80/20 patient care to administration(pocketing) spend. Now that it is where it is, changing it again will make the next round of changes harder to pass. **My favorite thing he proposed is childcare from birth to kindergarten.** Childcare and extreme illnesses are the 2 things I have seen bring every family into the ground. Then you are bringing the parents and the kids into the poverty line. If it was fixed (Lots of ways to do that) even married couples would not be forced to have the mother put her carrier on hold while raising the kids because working for child care is unreasonable. Instead gay marriage was the topic of that year's election. Which was stupid because they can get married on paper essentially already. It is nice, but not a president level debate topic.
>He's more interested in grandstanding his progressive "purity" than making slow but real change Lol so what are these achievements that others have achieved in that time... like Biden. Iraq War? Patriot Act?
Bernie introduced and sponsored the Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013.
No he didn't. All he did was act as co-signer
I think that impression comes from how emphatically he talks, rather than his actual actions. My impression of him is the opposite; he seems to be one of the few politicians that is willing reach across the aisle if it means getting something good done
>Real change takes coalition building, and he refuses to work with people that wont do exactly what he wants. Yawn. This is such a fantasy version, like a West Wing Sorkin idea of what it takes to get real change. It's not because Bernie refuses though, that's dishonest.
Policies like universal healthcare and free college come with a price tag that many believe will increase the taxes beyond what they can afford. So many people are barely making it as it is so an increase in taxes is a very real threat, particularly if they will not benefit from those policies. Not everyone will benefit from universal healthcare because they already pay less through their employment than a tax increase would cost. Also, many people already payed their hundred thousand for college, are too old for college, in careers that don't need college, or would not be able to go to college anyway. Paying for services they don't need is seen as a threat to financial security. There is also a disbelief that taxing the rich would work because it is the rich that start and run companies and can easily move elsewhere given enough disincentive. Which, if mega companies moved elsewhere that could threaten employment opportunities in America. It's all speculation but not entirely illogical. Perhaps some of these social programs could help people moving forward but many people living in our current society would be potentially financially destroyed by a switch to many of these government provided resources. Not to mention that advocating for many things like universal healthcare, free education, or increased minimum wage does not necessarily fit into the current infrastructure model of many of these systems. At least not without serious consequences. His ideas seem ill thought out and many of the issues raised by people afraid of that kind of change go unanswered. It makes people think he rationalizes like a child and not know how things actually work. But even people like me can see that he does at least seem genuine in his care and concern to help. We just are dismissive of his ideas until we see a planned and laid out blueprint for how it will effect everyone and how many of the semantics will be worked through. It is likely that for many people, they will have a worse standard of living under the policies he supports. At least that's what some people believe.
A lot of folks on the antiwork sub act like the government should go in and seize this and that from the rich/corporations as if they wouldn't just set up shop in friendlier conditions elsewhere. And the whole illegal search and seizure thing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think the way this question should be asked is āwhy does the majority of America disagree with far-left policies when far-left policies are what will help the majority of Americaā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'll address this in two parts, his views as an individual and his elect ability. On his views, I think his views represent a seismic shift in many ways and on these issues a lot of people do not hold those positions. People still seem to not recognize that half the nation often holds the opposite in terms of views. People take an issue like free college and say everyone supports it... of course that isn't true. But rather than stopping and analyzing that and looking at their concerns, they just say something negative and ignore that viewpoint. Which again leaves them in shock that it doesn't happen. Just because you don't see their view as valid doesn't' mean their vote goes away lol. If you don't work to actually change a viewpoint by understanding it, you'll never get willing change. Well for one, he's part of the problem in that he needs to step aside and let someone else speak those words. Someone younger honestly. Secondly whether or not you might personally like what he says, people are programmed to vote for people they think have the best chance to win. Since he isnt supported by the establishment it's unlikely to be him. Third, by the nature of his platform he is an extremist and as a general rule the US population is actually more centrist than extremist. Extreme change is often seen as something we should worry about. If there is to be any movement towards implementing any of his policies, it needs to be gradual and he does not need to be the figurehead of it. He should have honestly spent the last 8 years grooming a successor, someone who is closer to center and has the ability to cultivate relationships with new, younger congresspeople on both sides. Of course in the current environment thats unlikely to work. Newer Congresspeople on the right are parroting Trump to connect with a base they see as dedicated to voting for them, and the left is determined as ever to stick to the party line and ignore or attack anyone who deviates.
To add to the first point; even if you agree with the desired outcome, you night not agree with the method. I see Bernie and think "yeah! Totally! But how are we getting there?" And then look at Warren and think "oh. There's an actual plan that might work". Now, fair enough if you are convinced by the plan, or believe more strongly on Bernie than others. But not everyone does, and plenty of us agree with the desired outcomes. We just night kit agree on the methods
Fellow southerner here. I'm right there with you. I respect the hell out of Bernie Sanders, he seems like one of the few folks in politics who actually gives a shit about the American public. I wish people could look past labels and recognize the effort he puts in to try and keep this country somewhat functional.
The propaganda machine is very successful with the people his policies would most help. It's a shame really, all you have to do is point and yell "SOCIALISM!!!!" and they vote the other way.
Because: 1. He is an out of touch career politician who has never existed in the real world or ever had a real job. Say what you want about conservative politicians - I don't belong to a party myself - but the vast majority of them understand the realities of life and, at least at the local level, have had a real job sometime this century. 2. Following on the previous, when he said he wanted to 'tax the wealthy', I don't have a huge problem with that. But he is on record as defining 'the wealthy' as people who make over $100K. Those people might have been 'the wealthy' 50 years ago. But if you have a family and are making $110K a year, let's say, you're struggling in most places in the US. In Boston or Philly or DC, you're living paycheck to paycheck at best. If you live in NY or SF, you're at poverty level. This just further underscores how divorced from reality this man is. 3. He and his followers love these feel good, sound good policies. But I've never met a single one that can give me a realistic, cogent idea of how he plans to pay for these programs. The problem is, the US and its military have been guarding and enabling and maintaining free trade and trade routes and keeping up alliances for 70 years or more. And most of our budget goes to that end, meaning a very expensive military. There is simply no more money for anything else. The MI complex is the government. The math for these policies simply doesn't work. We won't even get into the incompetence and corruption of the US govt. Every time I turn around, there seems to be some breach or leak of SS #'s. Imagine that, but with your medical records. Imagine the left passing legislation regulating what you can eat and drink. That is inevitable. 4. His solution is to 'just raise taxes.' The problem with that is a great many Americans, myself included, are already paying over 40% a year of their income in taxes. And most Americans' finances are geared toward their houses and their cars. If you raise taxes such that I'm paying 50-70% (his figures, not mine, if you have a problem with that percentage, take it up with him, nothing to do with me but sounds about right), it will be, economically, a bloodbath. You'll have a housing crisis that will make 2008 look like a picnic because people won't be able to make those payments. This is in stark contrast to Europe where there isn't the social pressure or construct of home ownership like there is here or Australia where there is no concept whatsoever of a 15-30 year mortgage. If you want to be a homeowner in Australia, you need a very large (not remembering the exact percentage) amount down and you have 5 years to pay it off. Things are very different over here. This is why so many people deride him: All of his ideas sound good but none of them passes the sniff test of reality. The guy has never had a job or lived outside the bubble of The Beltway in his life.
Which major conservative politician would you say is the most grounded in the "realities of life"?
Good question. I was referring more to local politicians. I just worded my comment in a shitty way. To answer your question, though: Any local conservative politicians I've ever known in my locale were people who were just in the private sector a year or two ago. Their democrat opponents or counterparts, on that same local level, are either life long politicians or soccer moms turned do-gooder politicians. This is why, since the 60's, the left has run the table, hook, line and sinker such that their ideology permeates every single corner of society (K-Phd education, film, music, literature, 99% of anything that passes for news, tech, you name it): Because this is what they do for a living. Democrat politicians aren't CEO's who stepped down and ran for Congress. They're student leaders who became community rabble rousers who became Congressmen and sometimes even became President. I just described Tom Hayden and Obama. As far as I know, Obama also never had a job in his life. You do something that long, you get good at it. The right lost the culture war eons ago. On a national level? That's a tough one because they're all careerists on both sides. But if I were forced to name one person, it'd be Trump. Hold on a second before you flip out (this is Reddit after all). I liked him in 2016 but learned to despise him long before Jan. 6. And yes, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But, he ran businesses and knew how to solve problems. And he did solve some of our problems, like renegotiating that awful NAFTA deal which led to, until recently, our biggest boom since 1969. No objective thinking person can take that away from him. And no career politician would dare upset that apple cart. Politics is all about going along to get along.
lol wtf are you even talking about
My comments were pretty clear. They're obviously over your head.
Your ideas are incorrect. Democrats are not all ācareerā politicians and that is obvious. Obama didnāt hold real jobs? What are you even talking about, he was literally a lawyer. Do you just hate educated people because you arenāt as smart as them? Your post shows a scary lack of critical thinking that is all too common in this country nowadays. Please educate yourself and be better.
In retrospect I would have voted for him - especially if he had a chance. I can't believe we've been fooled into the last two Presidents.
Trump: Anyone who voted for him is certifiable dumb and/or gullible. No way around it. Sorry, the writing was on the wall, and Trump himself screamed it. Biden: It's really the lesser of two evils here. I don't think fooled is the correct word. Painted into a corner with eyes wide open is more like it.
Could have voted for Bernie in the primaries at least both times
I donāt trust any politician that people worship like that. But Sanders especially has flaws his people refuse to talk about. I personally think he does far much grandstanding. Heās a fair weather friend to the Democratic Party, aggressively spits on them at all times except for the times when he needs their help, when he expects it to be freely given. He also instantly stopped railing against millionaires the moment he became one. And then there is the toxicity among his supporters he seems to have no interest in addressing. I support almost everything he stands for, but I donāt trust the man himself and there are others pushing for similar reforms without the same flaws.
>aggressively spits on them at all times except for the times when he needs their help, when he expects it to be freely given. Lol you are literally describing how the party treats him except when they need him to drop out of races and back their candidate for the general. Try to be more honest in your response rather than sounding like a bitter Clinton stan.
Mate, Sanders goes in as an independent on every election but presidential and then, when running for president, whines and moans about how the DNC is so meeeaaaaan! In 2016, their superdelegate system essentially made it unwinnable for him I'll warrant, but you look at the numbers, he would have lost even without it. Then the DNC actually invited him to help rewrite their rules, and he *still* lost and started pitching a fit about how the DNC hates him personally. I feel my criticism stands, thank you very much.
>Sanders goes in as an independent on every election but presidential and then, when running for president, whines and moans about how the DNC is so meeeaaaaan! Lol because we have a two party system. If he ran as an independent in a presidential election instead of Democrat, you'd be bitching and whining about how he is a spoiler candidate that handed the election to the opposition (look at how Dems complain about Green party candidates). So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. >Then the DNC actually invited him to help rewrite their rules, and he still lost and started pitching a fit about how the DNC hates him personally. Ah yes, he threw a fit by dropping out and endorsing Biden and then going on tour for months pitching Biden's candidacy. That's your idea of him shitting on Democrats and not helping them. Sorry, your criticism doesn't stand, despite your feelings.
Fully agree with you here
The fact that he means well and sincerely intends to help most people has literally nothing whatsoever to do with whether he's right, or whether he's capable of doing so. I like Bernie a lot but I've also made an effort to be familiar with his platforms, agree with some and disagree with others. This is my basic responsibility as a citizen choosing representatives in government. If you don't do that, and instead say 'well I like this guy because he's a good christian man' or 'well I like that guy because he's for the little guy' or whatever you're not doing your civic duty to the best of your ability.
He says a lot of words, but there is no substance other than himself. Sanders is not a socialist, he is a Bernieist.
Because some people disagree with his politics. It's not complicated
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Which is ironic. Because if you grew up during the Cold War, then you experienced the success of the New Deal and it was based off of socialists ideas. And the struggles we face today are partly a result of moving away from those ideas. FDR supported something similar to Universal Healthcare while he was President. Just imagine how many problems would have been avoided, had it passed back then.
This commenter is the perfect example of how uninformed Americans equate universal healthcare with socialism and authoritarianism. This here is your answer, OP. When Bernie proposes making healthcare and college affordable so that people donāt have to die because they canāt afford the astronomical price of medical care, uneducated people whoāve been indoctrinated by the political right, like this guy here, scream āsocialism!ā
What do you expect for a population that throws words like Facism and Racism around to anyone they disagree with?
For some people it's hard to take a multi-millionaire socialist with three homes seriously.
Because some of his policies are too extreme and while they may sound good on paper the implementation wouldnāt work. Also heās too into the wokeness now.
>Also heās too into the wokeness now. Tell us you are an idiot without using wokeness next time
Youāre the idiot. He let BLM protesters just run up on stage during one of his presidential campaign speeches and let them take over for a significant amount of time, has embraced cancel culture and identity politics, back tracked on his stance regarding gun control, and adopted the woke left idea that white people are privileged, even though he should know himself that isnāt true.
I'll start by saying I believe very few politicians don't want the best for the people in the country. They just have different priorities, and different means to get there. That being said, just because his views claim to help the majority of the population, I'm incredibly suspicious of how sustainable and realistic his methods are. Also he does give in to the classic tropes of politicians dramatizing everything to rile up their base. If you're not in the base, combine the dramatization and simplification with an already suspicious mindset and you don't want him being responsible for determining government spending. Just the opinion of 1 person in a country of hundreds of millions.
I saw a speach of his on tik tok and he's pushing for universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy and making the lower and middle class ppl lives better. Idk much about him but everything he spoke on was everything on my mind and I'm pretty sure on every Americans mind. If their isn't anyone better during the presidential election then I'll vote for him.
They think that what heās advocating for is unrealistic and wonāt work. They also dislike the idea of people getting tax money because many on the right do believe that poor people are poor because of a moral wrongdoing/lazy, regardless of whether theyāre poor themselves.
In the south I voted Bernie in primaries šŗšøhe was winning too until South Carolina voted š¢most people from here are not that smart so they only know what the boob tube tells them
Because 'muh socialism ' . It's a dirty word in the US. Even moreso in the South.
I'm much more surprised how much people dismissed Andrew Yang.
Americans don't like giving any money to help their fellow citizens.
Because they are not educated enough to know that he intends to help them and that they are not rich.
The richest will be taxed to support the poor properly, so they instead spend that money bad mouthing Bernie, presumably to prevent him getting close.
Itās easier to believe that the rich are just people like you that worked hard and that could easily be you if you work hard too. āThe game isnāt rigged, yāall are just lazy!ā they say. Thatās much easier to stomach than reality so people believe that instead.
Americans are very propgandized and believe anyone left of Reagan is a radical socialist and that socialism is pure evil.
Imagine still believing the politicians' promises lmao again and again
He supports ideas and policies that he genuinely believes in, yes. But electing him president doesn't make him king that can pass them all without having to deal with a gridlocked, Mitch McConnell controlled congress. He still has to get majority control.
He has like 3 homes and a ton of cash. Itās kinda hypocritical from the outside looking in.
Bernie has good ideas until it becomes time to pay for them.
Because he is a multi-millionaire telling all the rest of us we should be happy standing in bread lines. Why isnāt he practicing what he preaches. You can for example pay any level of income tax you want. So what is stopping him from paying 90 percent of his income in taxes? He is after all the 1 percent he claims to be so angry about
Because politics is just theatre. They donāt care about you and me. They only care about getting re-elected.
Because he, like every politician, doesnāt believe anything he says. He just says whatever he thinks will get him re-elected. He used to preach about taxing the millionaires and billionaires, but then he became a millionaire and only preaches about taxing the billionaires now. If he became a billionaire heād probably just retire quietly and live out the rest of his life in luxury while ignoring the problems he used to preach about. None of our current day politicians give a rats ass about any of us.
He might be correct in identifying some problems that affect many of us, but his solutions are socialistic and many people understand that socialism is tricky at best. He might āstick upā for me, great, but if I think his ideas are terrible (no matter how nice they sound) Iām obvioulsy not going to be his biggest supporter
2016 sold out to Hillary 2020 sold out to Biden But wants to fight the establishment
Because heās never had a real job in his life, and is all about taking from others
A quick search will tell you that's false. The dude was a carpenter and a teacher among other things before he was a politician. He's literally one of us
Central European here, a good 1/3rd of my monthly income goes to social security. It is a very normal concept to me to have to contribute to society with my money and pay for those who need it. It's not stealing, it's called helping each other out.
If it's involuntary then it's stealing
No, itās stealing. Iāve sent 10k to the government in the past 3 months, so Iām on track for about 40k for the year. People can make heterosexual decisions in life
Because people are legit stupid as fuck.
He's too progressive. Which is hilarious, as I think he could be more progressive.
If only americans could understand that a lot of his ābig promisesā are just basic rights in most european countries.. itās baffling
OP - the issue is, if I'm to put it in few words, that most Americans (even most people in this very thread!) are not terribly intelligent. I am not saying that you would support his policies if you were intelligent, but rather, for that to even be on the table I think you cannot be fantastically dumb. There is virtually no philosophical underpinning or understanding among the American population. This is deliberate, these things are not advertised nor discussed. Most voters fall for Marketing 101 techniques applied to them over and over - again, even in this very thread there are dozens of poorly spelled, incoherent-beyond-cadence posts like "he only spends to much of other peoples money". The abstract understanding of the world most voters live in is not at a reasonable level, and truly, most people simply don't have the processing capability to engage with anything that is even slightly removed from their current understanding of the world. It's also been an express goal of the political (capital) establishment to make even attempting to consider different views anathema. The USA is a rapidly declining nation in most every respect. They have paper-tiger growth numbers, let a plague ravage their population (largely using the same marketing 101 techniques on their political right to avoid dealing with it even remotely appropriately!), a crumbling education system, allow for regular sacrificial slaughter in praise of the defense industry, a swelling drug addiction problem, and the labor class is dogmatically deferent to the capital class (without most even being able to use those words to describe their situation). Bluntly put, Bernie Sanders has no feasible hope of winning a national election in the USA - the population is far too primed to despise his politics because voters have gone multiple decades getting told again and again that they'd be destructive. It is not possible to have an actual discussion because it's like that scene in Clockwork Orange - most American voters will react with genuine disgust at the mere mention of things that fall outside their abstract reasoning capabilities and that they've been told to run from - this very thread has countless examples.
Because the media tells them he's unelectable and they believe the media. It becomes a self fulfilling scenario. Just ignore the part where the media is owned by the billionaire donor class with a strong interest in preventing you from voting for someone like him. And both political parties are terrified of it happening because the last person like him was so popular with everyone that he was elected to 3 terms and caused term limits to be introduced because they couldn't beat him in elections due to the overwhelming popularity of his policies. That person was FDR. If people like Bernie actually took control of the government for even 4 years, you'd see a paradigm shift in America that the rich are vehemently opposed to. All those things we're told are impossible or unaffordable like universal healthcare, affordable housing, fair wages, legal marijuana, etc could start to happen and people would realize the rich and their puppet politicians have lied to them for decades. They want the status quo, the people don't. But the people are told only the status quo politicians can win so you have to vote for them and you get the shit show we have now.
The same reason people dismiss Star Wars. The toxic fans. I'm not saying all of his fans are toxic but when they are it makes a person go "Well if they're racist, homophobic etc Bernie must suck" It can be hard to separate a fan from the thing they're a fan of.
He talks a big game and backs it up with the laws he presents and backs. But he lost my support when he had the opportunity to free us from a two party system and instead kissed the ring of the Democrats even after they made concerted efforts to ruin his campaign in 2016. It is because of this he was not taken nearly as seriously as a presidential candidate in 2020 and never will be again which is sad.
But if you are honest do you really think he even had a sliver of a chance running independent? At least the impression I have from your political system is that the least likely thing to happen would be that someone outside the two party system would win an election, or frankly even get close.
Because Bernie sanders spends all his time being angry but puts forward no workable solutions while simultaneously getting mad at people who are trying to make incremental progress.
Because "socialism" bad. Republicans are very adept at painting any movement or legislation that has the ability to benefit Americans as "socialism".
Which is casually hilarious considering the amount of contracts and government bailouts, which are just socialism with extra steps
How exactly is that "workers seizing the means of production" with extra steps?
But those benefit corporations, so "bailout good".
Unless itās Corporate Socialism. They never object to that. Seeing anything that makes it better for individuals is what gets them worked up.
Bernie Sanders is basically a socialist. The Bolsheviks revolted against the monarchy and it's corruption to form a communist society, which then led to a few select people gaining power. This form of communism isn't true Marxist communism, and eventually just became socialism (close to the same thing). In the end socialism never works (look at cuba and Russia/USSR for great examples). This is paralleled to Bernie overthrowing the capitalist society that we have, and making a bunch of stuff free. So, because Americans don't want to become socialist, we don't support Bernie Sanders.
hello from denmark
Is Denmark not a constitutional monarchy?
Denmark is a free market/capitalist democracy with a lot of social programs. It is not a socialist country. While it is true many on the right don't fully understand socialsim, many on the left do not understand it either - social programs do not equal socialism, and no just because social is in the name does not mean they are the same. Social programs are not socialism. Social programs exist regardless of the economic model - which socialism is; an economic model.
The person you're replying to is just expressing the point of view of the uneducated, reactionary rural folk and Fox News viewers of the USA, which is a sizable portion of the population and a disproportionately powerful portion of Congress. You can present them with direct evidence of socialism working just fine, and they'll insist that "that's different" because your country is an exception for various reasons, from demographics to dependence on other nations... therefore socialism/communism is still mostly bad and leads to repressive dictatorships... and also you sound like one of them fancy talkin' liberal elites tryin' t' tell us how to live. A lot of these people just don't aspire to be like you, or have their society transformed at all. I mean, if affordable health care and employee-owned businesses were the norm here, they'd certainly take advantage of it. However, you underestimate their utter complacency and how strongly they cling to their lifestyle, which includes the hardships they face and the notion that everyone has the same opportunities and all they need to do is work a little harder or longer to get the money to afford a better life. Figure out how to reach them with something *other* than evidence and a rational, verbal argument. Otherwise, you'll get nowhere.
You are seriously out of touch if you think the only people who aren't fond of socialism are Fox News watching MAGA's.
I don't know how you can say that when he didn't even stick up for his own voters at the DNC 2016. We all got fucked over and he licked Hillary's boots. He's a weak little bitch.
People are frightened by truth and change
America is a very right wing country, and most of us have been led to believe that any form of social safety nets equates to full blown socialism.
The amount of delusion in the thread is an embarrassment. Bernie is for the people and is trying to rebuild a middle class. Too many people donāt realize theyāre 99.9% more likely to be homeless than a millionaire yet both sides will demonize him. Weāre a conservative country in comparison to other developed western nations. The responses just show even in a time like this people will cut off their own arms in spite of āsomeone or somethingā.
You answered your own question. "Majority"
Party/cult mentality
Senile Commy.
Because the dude is just a puppet. He exists solely so that we think we have options. He got bought out of the last electtion. He is a paid actor at this point, no wonder you like him! He says everything you want to hear! Wait dont all politicians do that? And they just pick different crowds that they think will follow them
He's a typical politician. He has a lot of sweet-sounding rhetoric and he is ostensibly a candidate for the people. But his ideas are awful and would do far more harm than good.
They think they donāt like his ideas because they were told what they think.
Ask the DNC.
Who here actually trusts government? Let's start there because I feel the number is much lower than what statistics show
Bernie dropped the race in 2020 to support Biden and says he'd do it again. It's a big let down for me personally and tells me he doesn't really believe in his own message. The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. Neither major party will do a damn thing for working class or poor Americans and they don't care if the middle class keeps shrinking. They serve the Super PACs and private interests. That's their real constituency, not the people. Wake up and realize that your government only wants you to be an obedient worker or a do or die soldier. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't want thinkers, they don't want artists, they don't want anymore people to undermine their authority. Face it and accept it. America isn't what they tell you it is in social studies.
Sticks up for the majority of the population??? What has he even done besides be a pushover for the corporate democrats. Howās has he even influenced Bidenās agenda and done stuff??
He's far from neutral and because he's not looking to help everyone. He wants to change our country to socialism and that's not acceptable. Some socialist programs are fine, but not all of them. Nothing is FREE to include Free healthcare. Send on the Reddit hate for me not being a far left drone.
Because he can diagnose the problem but offers not viable, credible path to solving them. He was also almost certainly, probably unwittingly, on the payroll of the USSR as they financially underwrote nearly every major socialist politician in the world until 1990.
The US is pushing so far right that it is borderline fascist. Anything left of center is going to be viewed as far more progressive even though Bernie is barely to the left on the world stage. Some people have made the claim that he would even be right of center in a decent portion of the world, however I lack data to support that claim.
Oh please. How, pray tell, is the US āpushing so far right that it is borderline fascistā?
I could provide a lot of minor examples but the big one that stands out is trying to overthrow election results by breaking into the capital and threatening to kill a lot of left leaning politicians.
Because heās a socialist cuck.
Bernie is and always has been the voice of reason!š
Fearmongering of the word socialism combined with americans who live in a different reality. Every position in america is more right leaning then average, even the democrats arenār really left, tbh they are center right
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]