Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rockaction

Sanders Praises Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega in 1985

Recommended Posts

This isn't new information, the article is almost a year old. Clearly people have decided they don't care.  I certainly don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Conspiracy theory stuff here folks.  Again, I run in mainstream Democratic circles and spend a LOT of time dealing with corporate politics.  Not a single Democrat has ever suggested they don’t want Bernie to win the nomination because he “might win”.  Conversely, every single Dem is focused #1 on beating Trump, regardless of who the nominee is.  Do many prefer other Democratic nominees?  Absolutley!  As do i, for reasons that having nothing to do from fearing a Bernie Presidency.  

You are simply reiterating Bernie-bro talking points and passing along fake conspiracy theories.  

 

Here's John Heilemann saying the same "Bernie bro conspiracy theory" on National TV... https://twitter.com/ChickHearnBern/status/1224446928278020102?s=09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of establishment Dems are afraid of Bernie winning the nomination because they think he will lose to Trump.  I think that’s the overwhelming majority of the “Bernie scares us” crowd among Dems.

I do think there are some donor/banker/Wall Street types that view Sanders very negatively and are scared by a Trump-Sanders election because both candidates are so unpalatable to them.  My guess is that’s not as prevalent as the electability folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Conspiracy theory stuff here folks.  Again, I run in mainstream Democratic circles and spend a LOT of time dealing with corporate politics.  Not a single Democrat has ever suggested they don’t want Bernie to win the nomination because he “might win”.  Conversely, every single Dem is focused #1 on beating Trump, regardless of who the nominee is.  Do many prefer other Democratic nominees?  Absolutley!  As do i, for reasons that having nothing to do from fearing a Bernie Presidency.  

You are simply reiterating Bernie-bro talking points and passing along fake conspiracy theories.  

 

Exactly.

The Bernie Bro conspiracy crowd is just a few steps less annoying than MAGA hat wearing, truck nuts, liberal tears guy.

Agree with all your sentiments regarding a Sanders presidency. He’s not going to get any drastic policies through Congress. Free college tuition wouldn’t happen but looking at the out of whack rise in cost of college will perhaps be addressed. At the very least the discussion will take place. He won’t get us of fossil fuels in 8 years or whatever but he will shift in the right direction,

Most importantly he’s not Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my guess is you will all see and well understand the necessities & vicissitudes of revolution before you feed the worms. email me @ wikkidpissah@hell.com when you do

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The General said:

Bernie was quite a bit larger favorite in head to head polls versus Trump than Hillary was right up to the end IIRC.

He’s got his people. 

If only Hillary would have honeymooned in the Soviet Union back in the 80’s like Bernie this would have been closer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

If only Hillary would have honeymooned in the Soviet Union back in the 80’s like Bernie this would have been closer. 

She could have partied with Donald in Moscow, secured some loans.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Water restricted toilets and efficient light bulbs seem to be at risk. 

The corruption is vast and incomparable in terms of magnitude and quantity, I do think it’s a sea change from the past. IMO. And I think this could become the norm.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The General said:

She could have partied with Donald in Moscow, secured some loans.

I agree, hopefully she packs her Steele Dossier before she heads out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Sorry, I agree.  What I meant is that seems like a pretty obvious lesson to draw from the 2016 election, but some folks are intent on making the exact same mistake in 2020.

Not just some, most.  And they are bringing friends.  Who runs against Trump matters.  I fear Democrats are underestimating him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcintyre1 said:

This isn't new information, the article is almost a year old. Clearly people have decided they don't care.  I certainly don't.

No, but you're a dyed in the wool lefty. This article isn't whether you care or not. I'm sure you don't. It's what tens of millions of people up for grabs do care about, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
52 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Water restricted toilets and efficient light bulbs seem to be at risk. 

The corruption is vast and incomparable in terms of magnitude and quantity, I do think it’s a sea change from the past. IMO. And I think this could become the norm.

It's a parallel to the rise and transformation of right wing media.

Fox News was founded on being a balance to the liberal mainstream media. Over time, it has become nothing more than a corrupt sycophant of Trump and his beliefs (and his whims).

The corruption of the party itself has followed a similar path.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonessed said:

Not just some, most.  And they are bringing friends.  Who runs against Trump matters.  I fear Democrats are underestimating him again.

They’re not underestimating Trump, they’re underestimating the American public. We will not elect a socialist for President. I’m not saying not ever, but not now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, timschochet said:

They’re not underestimating Trump, they’re underestimating the American public. We will not elect a socialist for President. I’m not saying not ever, but not now. 

If we elect a socialist for president, and I have the scratch, I'm personally leaving. It's not a threat nor an angry thing, it will just be that I no longer can tolerate a plurality of citizen's views about how to best organize my own labor and capital before taxes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

If we elect a socialist for president, and I have the scratch, I'm personally leaving. It's not a threat nor an angry thing, it will just be that I no longer can tolerate a plurality of citizen's views about how to best organize my own labor and capital before taxes. 

Seriously? 

The public doesn’t think about these things too deeply. You don’t need to make that kind of assumption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously @rockaction- if Bernie wins, how many voters do you think chose him because they thought “I agree with his view about how to organize labor”??? 5% if you’re lucky. More likely the reasons will be: 

1. He’s not Trump. 

2. Somebody new and different. 

3. Free healthcare! 

4. Make my student loan go away! 

5. Lets show those sons of #####es! 

6. #### the Republicans! 

Etc. You don’t need to leave, sir. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Seriously? 

The public doesn’t think about these things too deeply. You don’t need to make that kind of assumption. 

Dead serious. I'm not talking about now with Sanders. Just, if a more serious strongman or woman socialist comes along and gets elected, I'll be likely to go. I think the big thing would be financing. I'm not sure I could withstand sticker shock on any expatriation right now. I'd have to save up for a few years. I'm not sure where I'd go even remotely close to America, but there are some places in mind. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic party as a whole doesn't want Sanders to be the nominee because they know a socialist doesn't have a chance to get elected.  I don't think that is new news, but it's still true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Dead serious. I'm not talking about now with Sanders. Just, if a more serious strongman or woman socialist comes along and gets elected, I'll be likely to go. I think the big thing would be financing. I'm not sure I could withstand sticker shock on any expatriation right now. I'd have to save up for a few years. I'm not sure where I'd go even remotely close to America, but there are some places in mind. 

Even then, if that happens and we get Madame President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, public sentiment will still be in favor of capitalism. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Seriously @rockaction- if Bernie wins, how many voters do you think chose him because they thought “I agree with his view about how to organize labor”??? 5% if you’re lucky. More likely the reasons will be: 

1. He’s not Trump. 

2. Somebody new and different. 

3. Free healthcare! 

4. Make my student loan go away! 

5. Lets show those sons of #####es! 

6. #### the Republicans! 

Etc. You don’t need to leave, sir. 

Thanks for the encouragement, and I won't leave if Sanders gets elected, like I said before you posted. There's enough with Bernie to stay, and as you point out so astutely, reasons beyond the rule of the proletariat. I'm with you on that. But as fatguy and roadkill and others have pointed out, this country's young tack very much to the left. I'm not sure how, when they come of age, this will all get sorted out. 

I think him taking on corporate subsidies would be an absolute boon to our political malaise right now. We never got a real comeuppance in 2007/8, what we got were a bunch of greedy bankers sloughing in all the public money they could find at the trough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Even then, if that happens and we get Madame President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, public sentiment will still be in favor of capitalism. 

You think she's hated now, wait until she turns 35.  I'm sure by then the hate will x10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Even then, if that happens and we get Madame President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, public sentiment will still be in favor of capitalism. 

That's likely to be so, even with an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez as pres. Perhaps I'm being too drastic. But there's a definite strain on the left, it's very popular, and it's in the youth. We shall see.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, rockaction said:

If we elect a socialist for president, and I have the scratch, I'm personally leaving. It's not a threat nor an angry thing, it will just be that I no longer can tolerate a plurality of citizen's views about how to best organize my own labor and capital before taxes. 

You won't have to pack. As I have said since 2015, the American public will not elect an avowed Socialist, and that still holds true in 2020.

Add to that, Sanders was not vetted in 2016 because the Hillary people and the Democratic establishment didn't take him that seriously, so ammunition such as from the OP about his past was never used - but you can assured the gloves will be off now.

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Personally I think Sanders would be a disaster as president and should not be the winner of the Dem primaries

2. Castro and Ortega were nothing to admire

3. That said, particularly given what has transpired in the past thre years, I'm much more intersted in what he says now, than what he said 35 years ago 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

You won't have to pack. As I have said since 2015, the American public will not elected an avowed Socialist, and that still holds true in 2020.

Add to that, Sanders was not vetted in 2016 because the Hillary people and the Democratic establishment didn't take him that seriously, so ammunition such as from the OP about his past was never used - but you can assured the gloves will be off now.

Yeah, also the likelihood of me being able to suffer the sticker shock is prohibitive. I'm not tilting at windmills, and if there's a windfall I'd leave if the conditions were met, but my seat is pretty cemented in America should it have me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

1. Personally I think Sanders would be a disaster as president and should not be the winner of the Dem primaries

2. Castro and Ortega were nothing to admire

3. That said, particularly given what has transpired in the past thre years, I'm much more intersted in what he says now, than what he said 35 years ago 

Well said. I'm just thinking that from what I've been reading (and it indeed is limited) he hasn't backed own an inch from thoughts like these and stuff like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A leopard never changes its spots no matter how hard he tries to cover it up.

This goes to my larger point that there is no such thing as "Democratic Socialism".   That's just a smoke screen to fool the rubes since "I'm a Socialist" won't work.  Sanders always has been and will always be a pure Socialist/Marxist.  That's ALWAYS been the goal.  He just has to dress it up to make it look like it isn't, but once they're in, it's over. 

Socialism has never worked out for anyone in the entire history of man other than the 1% of the Party that controls it.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. I think we're past the point of "who said what" and "he said/she said".  I'm not a Bernie guy.....but I can't believe this will cause any of those people to not vote for him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

A leopard never changes its spots no matter how hard he tries to cover it up.

This goes to my larger point that there is no such thing as "Democratic Socialism".   That's just a smoke screen to fool the rubes since "I'm a Socialist" won't work.  Sanders always has been and will always be a pure Socialist/Marxist.  That's ALWAYS been the goal.  He just has to dress it up to make it look like it isn't, but once they're in, it's over.  Socialism has never worked out for anyone other than the 1% of the Party that controls it.

I'm very much nitpicking your point, but democratic socialism is a distinct form of socialism, distinguished from rule by the proletariat (communism) and different than syndicalism and anarcho-socialism.

Your broader point is taken. People slip under the radar as socialist and then expand what they'll really do once in office. And my guess is that democratic socialism does inevitably become plutocracy or rule by the proletariat and, in practice, leads to the wealth and power of only the 1% that controls it like almost every other nation-state experiment with socialism.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

I'm very much nitpicking your point, but democratic socialism is a distinct form of socialism, distinguished from rule by the proletariat (communism) and different than syndicalism and anarcho-socialism.

Your broader point is taken. People slip under the radar as socialist and then expand what they'll really do once in office. And my guess is that democratic socialism does inevitably become plutocracy or rule by the proletariat and, in practice, leads to the wealth and power of only the 1% that controls it like almost every other nation-state experiment with socialism.  

Very good response!  Thanks!  :thumbup:

I get that people will see "Democratic Socialism" like that, but IMO that's just a smoke screen.  It only exists to fool people.  It's not a real thing but certainly we can disagree on that point.  The ultimate goal is like what you said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, squistion said:

Add to that, Sanders was not vetted in 2016 because the Hillary people and the Democratic establishment didn't take him that seriously, so ammunition such as from the OP about his past was never used - but you can assured the gloves will be off now.

I always hear this but I’m not sure how much I believe it. In 2016, Dems’ two biggest attacks against Sanders were his pro-gun votes and his praise of leftist strongmen several decades ago. He had to talk about gun manufacturer liability at nearly every debate and they played a video of him praising Castro at one debate as well. None of it really stuck.

Now that Bernie is the frontrunner, the time to vet him has finally arrived, yet we’re still talking about gun manufacturer liability (got brought up again last night) and his praise of strongmen 35 years ago. If there’s some juicy opposition research out there that’s bound to sink his campaign, it seems like it should’ve been deployed by now, no?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, caustic said:

 If there’s some juicy opposition research out there that’s bound to sink his campaign, it seems like it should’ve been deployed by now, no?

Some of us didn't really care to tune into the Democratic debates of 2016. You can bet this will be deployed in the general, where it will have much greater effect on Sanders. Let's put it this way: I'm reasonably informed. Lesser than some of you men and women, but reasonably. Some people aren't. When they hear the word Castro and see that clip, the Bern is immediately sunk in Florida and other places who aren't that blue. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Some of us didn't really care to tune into the Democratic debates of 2016. You can bet this will be deployed in the general, where it will have much greater effect on Sanders. 

For sure, I was responding to squis’ implication that Sanders won’t be nominated because the DNC treated him with kid gloves last time. I don’t quite agree with that.

It will absolutely be deployed in the general and make some people uneasy but I have no idea what the electoral effects will be. How many people will view this as definitely worse than all of Trump’s baggage? I thought Trump was 100% finished after the Access Hollywood tape, then he won every swing state a few weeks later. What a fool I was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, caustic said:

It will absolutely be deployed in the general and make some people uneasy but I have no idea what the electoral effects will be. How many people will view this as definitely worse than all of Trump’s baggage?

I would say people were willing to overlook a personal disposition about stardom and women and that people won't be as willing to forget the political as political w/r/t to this.

That said, I though "gosh darn America" would get Obama, and he shook it off like a fruit fly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the OMG socialism crowd, will you forego Social Security and Medicare when the time comes? How about your parents, are they beneficiaries? How would you classify those programs on a capitalism - socialism spectrum? Maybe this should be better asked in the hypocrisy thread. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

For the OMG socialism crowd, will you forego Social Security and Medicare when the time comes? How about your parents, are they beneficiaries? How would you classify those programs on a capitalism - socialism spectrum? Maybe this should be better asked in the hypocrisy thread. 

This is a dumb question and a false dichotomy and a gotcha moment only suckers fall for. One need not reject a kitty one has theoretically already paid into. That the government runs a Ponzi scheme with these two programs matters; people have already contributed.

Nice try.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess socialism doesnt mean what I think it means

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rockaction I watched 3 min of the clip. What’s he wrong about?

 Don’t agree with him on a lot of things but damn he can debate. It will either be him or Pete for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

This is the same guy who said the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote last year. Those ads will be fun.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/04/23/bernie-sanders-voting-rights-boston-marathon-bomber-buttigieg-harris/3548232002/

And what’s wrong with his position?  Someone might disagree with abortion but how could you support only allowing abortion for females 30-40 years old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

This is a dumb question and a false dichotomy and a gotcha moment only suckers fall for. One need not reject a kitty one has theoretically already paid into. That the government runs a Ponzi scheme with these two programs matters; people have already contributed.

Nice try.

Yeah I'll take mine back today I've paid in.  They can even have it interest free.  I don't want any of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joffer said:

I guess socialism doesnt mean what I think it means

I don't even agree with his position. I was just accepting it for argument's sake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BassNBrew said:

@rockaction I watched 3 min of the clip. What’s he wrong about?

 Don’t agree with him on a lot of things but damn he can debate. It will either be him or Pete for me. 

The first three minutes of the clip are reasonable. He's talking about installing dictatorships and Latin America and the way in which that isn't efficacious. It's at about eight minutes in when he starts defending Castro and Ortega that do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been this outraged since the last time a major presidential candidate praised some foreign dictators. In 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, rockaction said:

If we elect a socialist for president, and I have the scratch, I'm personally leaving. It's not a threat nor an angry thing, it will just be that I no longer can tolerate a plurality of citizen's views about how to best organize my own labor and capital before taxes. 

Move where? Mexico? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

A leopard never changes its spots no matter how hard he tries to cover it up.

So Bloomberg, Warren, and HRC are actually Republicans? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navin Johnson said:

Move where? Mexico? 

Finland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

For the OMG socialism crowd, will you forego Social Security and Medicare when the time comes? How about your parents, are they beneficiaries? How would you classify those programs on a capitalism - socialism spectrum? Maybe this should be better asked in the hypocrisy thread. 

This argument is the social safety net equivalent of "If you think the government should pay for firefighters and public roads, then you should be okay with the government owning the means of production in any other industry too."

Edit: Both of these are close variants of the Somalia Fallacy: "Oh, you like small government, you say?  Well you should move to Somalia then, because they don't have any government at all!"  All of these turn an argument along the lines of "We should do a little less of X" into "We should do none of X whatsoever," which is a form of strawmanning.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s true that social programs do not equal socialism, a bad argument on my part. Bernie supports M4A, but I’ve never heard him propose the state taking over private industry, which is why he isn’t a true socialist, despite his answer 35 years ago. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rockaction said:

If we elect a socialist for president, and I have the scratch, I'm personally leaving. It's not a threat nor an angry thing, it will just be that I no longer can tolerate a plurality of citizen's views about how to best organize my own labor and capital before taxes. 

You’re cool with a bank bailout that converted wealth well into the trillions - and counting - and have no issues with a policy of constant worldwide war that serves no purpose other than the transfer of wealth directly from the middle class, but yeah, providing broad access to health care and education will just be too much for you to stomach. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.