Red birds of a feather
Paul Knight has it exactly right. Both candidates are looney left progressives wanting to bring socialism down upon us. The only difference is the speed they bring destruction and harm to America and the American people.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Bernie Sanders may have missed his chance to finally head the Democratic ticket, but he still holds considerable clout.
Which is why Joe Biden was busy wooing the Vermont socialist's supporters this past week. "Senator Sanders and I may disagree on tactics," he said. "But we share a common vision."
That's good to keep in mind as the media try to cover up Mr. Biden's recent leftward lurches and convert him into a "moderate" to seem less scary in November.
However, they're both heading toward the socialist cliff, just in different vehicles. Bernie's is a red Ferrari, while Joe's is more like a red bus with "No Malarkey" on the side. Same road, same cliff. Different speeds.
There's nothing "moderate" about either of them. Well, Joe's hair is not as wild.
They both oppose any restrictions on abortion – even parental consent for minors – and want to force taxpayers to subsidize them. Likewise, Bernie and Joe want "free" tuition to four-year state colleges, although Joe limits the largesse to millions of families making under $125,000. Both want taxpayers to pony up to cover billions in outstanding student loans.
Both advocate advancing toward a single-payer health care system, which is code for socialist medicine. Bernie wants an outright government takeover, with his "Medicare for All" putting private insurers out of business and costing more than $30 trillion over a decade. Joe proposes an expanded version of Obamacare, with a new "public option," which would cost "only" $750 billion over ten years and would get us to Bernie's dream, just not as fast.
Both want federally subsidized childcare, with nothing for stay-at-home parents. Joe's is means-tested, while Bernie wants it for every single child, no matter how rich the parents. This indicates that his plan is less about helping hard-pressed parents with costs than getting kids into an institutional setting as soon as possible – a longtime goal of the Left.
Both Bernie and Joe want to overturn most of the Trump tax cuts that unleashed the economy before the coronavirus tanked it. They want to impose new taxes on those they deem "the rich."
Both support the entire LGBTQ agenda, including "The Equality Act," which would effectively criminalize Christianity and empower the government to enforce the Left's frontal assault on the moral order. Joe has proclaimed transgender rights "the civil rights issue of our time."
That might not sit well with the many black Americans who are not big fans of Drag Queen Story Hour .
Both men would appoint hard-left lunatics to the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts, ending President Trump's spirited, effective effort to reestablish constitutional jurisprudence.
Bernie embraces the Green New Deal, the utopian scheme advocated by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has declared war on fossil fuels, cow flatulence, cars and airplanes. This includes requiring 100% renewable sources of energy for electricity and transportation by 2030; cutting domestic emissions by 71% by that year, and putting aside millions for workers who lose their jobs. He claims the whole thing will cost only $16.3 trillion and create 20 million new jobs in wind, solar and other renewables. Oh, and it will "pay for itself" in 15 years. If you believe that, I have other nifty federal "starter" programs that will never cost more than I promised.
During the primaries, Joe embraced more and more of this cockeyed scheme. He now wants to end fossil fuel subsidies and ban any new oil and gas permits on public lands. Like Bernie, he would have the U.S. reenter the Paris climate treaty, which would put the U.S. under emission reductions dictated from Europe. Energy independence? That's so Trump.
On immigration, the Dems agree on reversing most of Mr. Trump's policies. Both want free health care for illegal immigrants. Bernie would end deportations and raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and halt construction of the border wall. Joe would raise the refugee admissions cap from 18,000 to 125,000 and throw $4 billion into Central America to help stop the flow. As far as the wall, Joe once supported funding for part of it, but has been evasive of late.
Both candidates would greatly strengthen union power, with national edicts for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, a national ban on state right-to-work laws, a law mandating "card check" for unionizing a workplace, and public employee unions.
They both oppose election safeguards like voter ID laws as "voter suppression."
There's much more to this picture, but Mr. Biden is going to have to walk a fine line in order to keep the Bernie legions happy without frightening the Boomers, who vote in far more dependable numbers.
Then there's the choice of a vice presidential candidate. Joe has promised to name a woman, while Bernie hinted he would do the same. Vice presidential nominees help cover a candidate's flank, as Mike Pence did for Donald Trump in 2016 with conservative Christian voters.
Even with Mr. Biden's swerve to the left, he still needs to cover the Bernie flank with a ditsy leftist woman.
The pretend moderate Amy Klobuchar might do the trick, if the crazies don't object, but there's also that perennial media favorite out there, tanned, rested and ready for another shot.
Tags
Who is online
187 visitors
"Senator Sanders and I may disagree on tactics," he said. "But we share a common vision."
That's good to keep in mind as the media try to cover up Mr. Biden's recent leftward lurches and convert him into a "moderate" to seem less scary in November.
However, they're both heading toward the socialist cliff, just in different vehicles. Bernie's is a red Ferrari, while Joe's is more like a red bus with "No Malarkey" on the side. Same road, same cliff. Different speeds.
There's nothing "moderate" about either of them. Well, Joe's hair is not as wild.
They both oppose any restrictions on abortion – even parental consent for minors – and want to force taxpayers to subsidize them. Likewise, Bernie and Joe want "free" tuition to four-year state colleges, although Joe limits the largesse to millions of families making under $125,000. Both want taxpayers to pony up to cover billions in outstanding student loans.
Both advocate advancing toward a single-payer health care system, which is code for socialist medicine. Bernie wants an outright government takeover, with his "Medicare for All" putting private insurers out of business and costing more than $30 trillion over a decade. Joe proposes an expanded version of Obamacare, with a new "public option," which would cost "only" $750 billion over ten years and would get us to Bernie's dream, just not as fast.
Both want federally subsidized childcare, with nothing for stay-at-home parents. Joe's is means-tested, while Bernie wants it for every single child, no matter how rich the parents. This indicates that his plan is less about helping hard-pressed parents with costs than getting kids into an institutional setting as soon as possible – a longtime goal of the Left.
Both Bernie and Joe want to overturn most of the Trump tax cuts that unleashed the economy before the coronavirus tanked it. They want to impose new taxes on those they deem "the rich."
Both support the entire LGBTQ agenda, including "The Equality Act," which would effectively criminalize Christianity and empower the government to enforce the Left's frontal assault on the moral order. Joe has proclaimed transgender rights "the civil rights issue of our time."
That might not sit well with the many black Americans who are not big fans of Drag Queen Story Hour .
Both men would appoint hard-left lunatics to the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts, ending President Trump's spirited, effective effort to reestablish constitutional jurisprudence.
Define what you mean by 'socialist'.
I will not entertain that derailment here
Then your article makes no sense. This article claims that Biden and Sanders are both heading in a 'socialist' direction:
You refuse to even define the term 'socialist'? Then why should anyone pay any attention to this article?
What does that have to do with what I just wrote?
I totally agree. You have to understand the concept to discuss it.
What you wrote has nothing to do with the seeded topic and I encourage my conservative friends to ignore your attempt to change the subject from the seeded topic
It has everything to do with the subject. You need to be able to decern if that article is true or not..
Where do you find Jen O’Malley Dillon claiming to be a Democratic Socialist?
Do you have a gaslighting mask and fake news repellant? You are going to need them, a lot, as this campaign progresses.
I was on this site in 2016. It was not a pretty sight and wont be this time either.
Even an OpEd piece?
Yes, I would say especially for an opinion piece...
Well since “we all” know it , and you know it, it should be an easy thing to define it.
Of course YOU would. And that is your opinion.
You may say so but my question was directed at the R.A. if you don't mind. Your opinion on an opinion such as this is well recognized and duly noted. Opinion pieces are just that. OPINION of the author.
I don’t really care what his definition of true or perfect is as that will never happen. Everyone knows what the standard and textbook and dictionary definitions of socialism are and that is what we are dealing with here not his fairy tale versions of it
,,,,,,, , ,
No one should need a special conversation or definition to orient themselves as to what that means. We don't need to derail seeds to define liberal and conservative, Democrat or Republican, Left or Right, and it's not needed here. Frankly, if it will be your intent to get bogged down in the political science minutiae of labels, then I have to agree with the seeder that you are seeking to derail.
There's nothing about this piece that implies a narrowly defined socialism ideal to be put into a textbook somewhere. As you said, it's a direction, not a destination. Deal with it as such - a generalization. The theme of the article is about the direction the two Democratic candidates want to take the country - not what they want to call it.
If you still need it, there is definition offered, though, through examples. They're all over the article. Free college tuition. Public payment of student loans. Single-payer healthcare. Federally subsidized childcare. Raising taxes. So the question really is are those good ideas or bad ideas?
It also mentions abortion and LGBT rights, but as there is no economic component, I don't see those as having very much to do with a socialist direction. We can still discuss whether or not they're a good idea.
One need only to look at what the current Congress intends to ask the POTUS to sign into law
under the assumption that the 'national emergency/health crisis' will continue for months.
It doesn't reek of capitalism, that's for sure.
It will be the largest safety net ( socialist policy ) ever foisted on the American public while adding $$2. something trillion to the already embarrassing debt load.
The reality is that people use the term with different meanings. Some think it means the presence of social programs. Others think it means statism. Other think it means authoritarian, command economy per the former USSR, others think it means expropriation of industry, bailouts, high taxes, highly regulated industry, etc.
If one wishes to be clear one should avoid the overloaded word 'socialism' and state clearly what they mean with words that have well-defined common meaning.
Now, in an article that compares Biden and Sanders in terms of socialism, one needs to define what that term is supposed to mean in this context.
Oh, so you think Sanders and Biden are trying to dismantle our capitalist economy and make the productive resources of the economy democratically controlled by the people? No, everyone does not have the same meaning for the term. Not even close.
What does it mean then Tacos! ?
Of course. But this article is trying to cast Biden as a Sanders 'socialist'. An article comparing and contrasting is a great idea. This article is arguing 'socialism' so we need to know what the author (or the seeder) means by the overloaded term.
Yes, since even an opinion piece should be grounded in some facts and this one is not. That just makes it nonsense passing itself off as twisted facts.
If you can't figure it out, I guess you can't participate. Oh, well!
As I said, this was illustrated through example. If you still don't understand, I guess you need to do a little research.
This is how discussions go awry. Personal snark right off the bat suggesting I am stupid instead of just offering a serious response to a serious question.
I read your comment the first time and replied.
I replied that this article is trying to to label Biden as a 'socialist'. If someone is going to pin a derogatory label they need to at least define what they mean.
If, as you suggest, the author is 'innocently' just trying to compare and contrast Biden and Sanders then he should not have gone with the gratuitous 'socialist' label. Why affix this label if the intent is not to tag Biden? And if you claim it is because Sanders self-labels as 'socialist' then why would the author not label Sanders a progressive Democrat (the more inclusive, general category covering both men) rather than go after the minority and negative 'socialist'? Instead of affixing a derogatory label on Biden, the quote could have easily read:
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders both want to drive America toward the
socialistprogressive Democratic cliff, just in different vehicles. Bernie's is a red Ferrari, while Joe's is more like a red bus with "No Malarkey" on the side. Same road, same cliff – different speeds.It is clear that the 'socialist' label is intentional and partisan. If this and other authors can successfully pin 'socialist' on Biden they will have dishonestly accomplished a partisan objective that gives advantage to Trump.
And (dishonest) partisan advantage is obviously what this article is about.
You sure like to read insults that aren't there into other people's thoughts. No one suggested you were stupid.
I missed the words "Biden is a socialist" in the article. Maybe you're reading things into other people's writing again? Just a thought.
I don't see why that would be derogatory even if he had used it. The article clearly argues that the proposed policies are bad policies and that they tend toward socialism. I see no insult. Just analysis.
You clearly have a lot of hangups over this word. I don't share them and I don't see it as important to the topic.
You'd do better to ask him yourself. I can't speak to all this conspiracy nonsense. I am interested in the topic of policy, not your righteous indignation over the use of the word "socialist."
OK, fine. It should be clear to you by now that we have nothing to talk about. I'm interested in policy. You're interested in what looks like political correctness, labels, and what appears to be your own brand of partisanship.
FYI there's a chance (I won't say how much of one at this time) that I could vote for Biden. I could not give two shits if someone calls him a socialist or - as is the case in this article - points out correctly that some of his policy proposals tend toward socialism. IF that's seriously what you care about, I think your priorities are deeply screwed up.
[ Okay Tacos! I will chalk it up to unintentional. I suppose I should also overlook the derogatory allegation you just made in the quote as also unintentional. ]
[ Accumulating a lot of unintentional personal allegations. ]
Ah, a comment on the content! Must an article literally use those exact words ("Biden is a socialist") before you acknowledge that it seeks to tag Biden as a 'socialist'? After all: "However, they're both heading toward the socialist cliff, just in different vehicles." is far from subtle.
You do not see the word 'socialist' as a derogatory label for a candidate for PotUS today?? Do you think a 'socialist' could win in a 2020 USA presidential general election? Yes, it is quite a political negative in the USA.
[ Hangups, conspiracy, righteous indignation ... do you see this as discussing the content or your interlocutor? ]
This article blatantly tags Biden as a socialist. Denying the obvious is not much of an argument.
No, Tacos!, I am talking about partisanship. Not political correctness, but dishonest partisan practices. I am confident I made that clear.
Your individual view of the label is merely anecdotal. You can deny that labeling a candidate for PotUS 'socialist' is entirely harmless, but that contradicts the political realities in the USA in 2020. To be crystal clear, if Trump can successfully peg Biden a 'socialist' in the general, will that be a good or bad thing for Biden? The answer is: bad. Would you answer: makes no difference?
[ My priorities are not the topic and your presumptive derogatory assessment is (of course) personal. ]
Do they tend towards 'socialism'? How could anyone possibly know if these tend or not given 'socialism' has not been defined for this context? After all, if one is to infer a definition for socialism by comparison (as you suggest) then everything listed in this article is ipso facto socialism. How could some tend towards socialism and others not?
Yes, I am pointing out the problem with using overloaded terms like 'socialism' sans disambiguation.
It? What is the 'it' you explained to a five year old?
You want an exact definition of socialism before we can discuss the article, but you don't require the exact words "Biden is a socialist" to accuse the writer of derogatorily labeling Biden a socialist? Seems like a double standard.
Speaking of exact wording, "heading toward" by definition means that he is not yet a socialist - just in danger of becoming one.
Again, he didn't call him a socialist, so it can't be derogatory. However, I don't think there should be a problem with accurately describing a candidate or policy as more or less socialist than another. No government system is completely devoid of socialistic qualities. Organized civilization, by its very nature, is socialist. The differences are in how much.
You're the one who wants to discuss Socialism or Socialist as an insult. I think it's silly and uninteresting. You can avoid me expressing that opinion by dispensing with this irrelevant subtopic and getting back to the stuff that matters.
It is PC because you are taking a word that is not an insult and making it one. Furthermore, it apparently bothers you personally or you wouldn't be spending so much attention on it.
No difference. Name the last Democratic nominee for president who wasn't labeled as a socialist to some degree by his Republican opponent. Without looking it up, I would say it hasn't happened in our lifetimes. People will either by into that ploy and be bothered by it (or not) based on their own tendencies. Neither Trump nor anyone else is going to convince someone that Biden is a socialist who wasn't thinking that way already.
Getting hung up on this shit is a waste. It's not 1/10000th as important as a discussion on the wisdom of the proposed policies would have been.
True, I do not require those exact words. There are many ways to say something. It is clear enough that the words I quoted: " However, they're both heading toward the socialist cliff, just in different vehicles. " are tagging Biden as a 'socialist'. I am surprised that you disagree.
By that reasoning, the author must think that Sanders is not really a 'socialist' either: " they're both heading toward the socialist cliff ". So what do you think the author means by the word ' both '? To me he is equating the two. Not sure how anyone could read that otherwise.
Well, as I noted, there are many ways to make a statement. The author can flat out call Biden a socialist, or he can be more subtle. Are you asserting that this article does not equate Biden and Sanders on the dimension of 'socialist' policy? (Where 'socialist' is merely a label; undefined.)
I might agree with you or disagree with you. Hard to say since I do not know what you mean by 'socialist'. The word, unqualified, is overloaded and virtually meaningless.
Expressing your opinion on the content is certainly not a problem. In fact, I encourage you to do just that. I thought my comments were clear in that regard.
You do not recognize that labeling a general election candidate for PotUS in 2020 as 'socialist' is derogatory??
Clinton (the qualifier ' to some degree ' really lowers the bar don't you think?). Nonetheless, the label 'socialist' as well as 'Muslim' and 'illegitimate', etc. are all emotive and negative. As are 'racist', 'rich', etc. Partisans use emotive, negative labels to damage their opponents.
I (and no doubt many others) disagree with your view that tagging Biden as a 'socialist' in the general election would NOT be damaging. If partisans can graft that key negative from Sanders onto Biden, Biden will most definitely be hurt by it. The USA electorate in 2020 is not ready to elect a 'socialist' as PotUS. I am smiling that I even had to type that.
I agree. The policy discussions are really what is important. But this article is a partisan hit piece so I am reacting accordingly.
Out of curiosity, I looked this up from Gallup (February 11, 2020):
'Socialist' is most definitely not a good label for a presidential candidate in the general election.
In my opinion the seeded article is entirely grounded in facts. Sorry but the independent view point is not fact central USA. Knights Washington Times op ed is squarely in the middle of mainstream conservative political opinion. We conservatives accept it as the pure driven truth and as fact.
Well wake up XX. First of all opinion by definition, is not a fact. Now let's go look at the Pew and not your opinion alone. According to the Pew:
So there are more indies than either Repubs or Dems and there are more Dems than there are Repub.
Furthermore:
In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
So, it seems that either way you slice it, the independent view point is not only fact central USA, it is the prevailing view in the country. Discounting us would be the same mistake that Hillary made in the last election.
I guess he is, but the point is to contrast them with Trump, not with each other. They disagree on all sorts of things, of course. The author allows for these differences when he says "Same road, same cliff. Different speeds."
Don't bother with this very minor concern. You could say Mike Pence, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz are all conservative/Republican/Capitalist, but that doesn't mean they would implement the same set of policies as president. Nevertheless, it would be pretty easy to make a case to liberals that they wouldn't want to vote for any of them based on very general positions or philosophies.
No, it just makes it easier to talk about it without getting caught up in pointless minutiae. There would be no value in trying to define some measuring system for the topic. It happens. Sometimes it happens a lot. Sometimes it happens a little. But it always happens some.
Many Republicans have negatively described politicians or policies as socialist. Does that make it a pejorative? Well, it's not quite the n-word, now is it? It's also not wildly inaccurate. Disliking something that you also identify with a label doesn't automatically make the label some kind of derogatory slam.
Many Republicans over the years have used the term with negative feeling because they feel negatively about it. That doesn't make it a slur. They genuinely fear a full transition to official socialism. By contrast to another practice, it's not like calling someone racist who actually isn't racist just so a person can score political points. There is good cause for bringing up socialism when referring to the Democratic candidates.
What we see above is a slippery-slope argument. The writer, like many on the Right, fears that embracing ideas like socialized medicine, free college, or forgiveness of loans will lead to the diminishment of individual liberties. Bigger government = smaller citizen.
Democrats should stop running from the term and call Republicans out on their hypocrisy. For many Republican voters, their favorite thing that government does is either Social Security or Medicare. Any Republican who promised to get rid of those programs couldn't get elected dog catcher.
We need to have our eyes open to the fact that we have - and want - a certain level of socialism in our government. Like so many things about America, we balance somewhere between extremes.
I agree. But note that I am not suggesting otherwise. As we equate Pence, Trump and Cruz with the label 'conservative/R/capitalist'†, the author equates Sanders and Biden with the label 'socialist'. He is, by that act, tagging Biden as: 'socialist'.
The point is that it is a political liability to be tagged 'socialist' in 2020 USA per the electorate. see: @1.1.36
† I am purposely not nit-picking here regarding Trump's conservative ideology or his affinity with the R political platform.
That makes someone a "radical leftist"? ROFL.
Why are people even responding to this garbage?
That is a ridiculous surge in government power and an obvious hard turn to the left.
You expect to seed multiple hate Trump seeds every day and not see any return fire directed at your messiahs?
XX, I am not a "both sides are equal" kind of a guy, particularly when it comes to right wing b.s.
Unions and a living wage minimum wage are not "far left". It is absurd to say they are.
Free college tuition - This should be up to the states. The federal government needs to stay out of it. Currently, there are already federal programs that guarantee student loans will be paid to the university (i.e. if the student can't pay, the government does). This has only prompted universities to jack up tuition so they can go on hiring and building sprees. It has been a disaster for students who can't repay the humongous debt. Thus we have:
Public payment of student loans - this is a terrible idea. Students have no business taking out loans they can't pay back. Go to a cheaper school. They do exist. Or don't go at all. Far too many people go to college just because they think they are supposed to. There is no real goal on the other side of their education. And maybe I'm being selfish about this, but I paid for my education out of my own savings. Do I get reimbursed? I doubt it. I think it's bullshit that I have to eat that cost because I went to a school I could afford while others went to town on the public dime.
Single-payer healthcare - Blunt instrument solution to a complex problem. We need more than this. We need cost controls and we need to maintain the freedom and flexibility of private insurance.
Federally subsidized childcare - What for? Honestly. I was raised by a single parent who left me at home when he had to go to work. I turned out ok. I managed to not drink bleach as a child or blow my brains out. Even where childcare is needed, why does the federal government need to pay for it? Talk to your city, county, or state. Talk to your employer. Talk to your parents and your in-laws.
Raising taxes - I would feel better about raising taxes if I didn't feel like government was already sloppy and wasteful with the money they get now.
Abortion - way too much attention is paid to this issue by politicians and the media. For years, every poll of voters and the issues they care about show that abortion is a relatively low priority. Debates over this only divide us.
LGBT rights - We should all be supporting LGBT rights and the notion that religion is threatened by it is silly. There are a lot of threats to established religions in this country far more dire than LGBT. Frankly, I think churches have done far more to hurt themselves than LGBT people could ever do.
So since we are discussing Biden, let's look at his official positions:
Free college tuition: Two years of free community college.
Public payment of student loans: Does not want to pay off student debt.
Single-payer healthcare: Biden's plan is very complex, but nothing like Bernie's. Read it here:
Federally subsidized childcare: Biden has said nothing about supporting free child care for children under the age of three.
Raising taxes: Biden's plan would raise taxes over a 10 year period.
Abortion: Pro-choice ( personally I disagree with you that this is a low priority item and I am not in the minority:
LGBT rights: he's where you are.
Clearly it would not be fair to claim that the two men are very close in most of their positions. Compared to Trump? Sure. But within the spectrum of the Democratic Party, Sanders is obviously much further Left than Biden.
Your poll doesn't address my point, which was about issue priority for voters. It simply says voters have an opinion on abortion. That's not a big surprise to me. People feel passionately about it, but they vote based on other issues. Here is the kind of poll I was thinking of:
In a list of about 21 issues ranked by importance to the voter, abortion ranks 20th. Looking at several polls over the years, that is usually about where it ends up in a list of priorities. But when it comes to the loudest voices in politics, you would think it was the most important issue.
I suspect this is also an issue that the great bulk of Americans aren't thinking about when they vote.
When it does come to single issue voters conservatives have a net advantage on pro life and pro gun rights issues.
OK so you want to know what Americans care about. Here is the latest from the Pew:
So not shocking is the economy. But then followed by....the environment. Bet that one shocked you, since it did me. Then the deficit, which I totally get, followed by climate change and then jobs. So I bet you never saw any of that coming, because I didn't.
But now let's break it down by party and issue:
Apparently Terrorism is still the number 1 issue for both parties, followed by the economy and health care.
SS, drug addition, infrastructure, jobs, and crime are things that both parties agree on.
Not even close. Look at the chart.