Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bernie Sanders supported Castro, Sandinistas

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 11:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

Except that's not what he said. All that he said is that Reagan misrepresented how unpopular and abusive these regimes are in order to bolster support for proxy wars, which is completely accurate. He stated that he didn't think that they were ideal, just that the negative perception of them is overblown.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 11:52:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 11:34:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

Except that's not what he said.

I didn't say anything about what Sanders said. This is a strawman. My argument is that we have militarily engaged against other "democratic socialist" regimes largely because of their ideology, and that Sanders shares this ideology with those regimes.

All that he said is that Reagan misrepresented how unpopular and abusive these regimes are in order to bolster support for proxy wars, which is completely accurate. He stated that he didn't think that they were ideal, just that the negative perception of them is overblown.

So the Cold War should never have existed, according to Sanders. Do you agree with this?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 11:52:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

I'm no fan of Sanders, and think he probably is an extremist, but in this case he was very careful not to say anything which could be used to associated him with the political practices of Castro or any of these socialists. He used vague phrases like "Impressive" (which applies even to Hitler) and "Totally Transformed" , and his main point was just that "these guys aren't as bad as we're lead to believe". He even invokes a ridiculous strawman to separate himself from Castro: "Sanders insisted that he did not mean to suggest "that Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect; they certainly are not." Of course they're not perfect. Literally no one would think you thought that, Mr. Sanders.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 12:24:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 11:52:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

I'm no fan of Sanders, and think he probably is an extremist, but in this case he was very careful not to say anything which could be used to associated him with the political practices of Castro or any of these socialists. He used vague phrases like "Impressive" (which applies even to Hitler) and "Totally Transformed" , and his main point was just that "these guys aren't as bad as we're lead to believe". He even invokes a ridiculous strawman to separate himself from Castro: "Sanders insisted that he did not mean to suggest "that Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect; they certainly are not." Of course they're not perfect. Literally no one would think you thought that, Mr. Sanders.

In the video, Sanders goes on about how he considered the Sandinistas to be justified in their insurrection because they were fighting for 1) Nicaraguan nationalism, and 2) proletariat-leaning policies that would seek to distribute wealth amongst the working class by shattering supposedly US-backed monopolistic industries.

The Sandinistas outside of their nationalism were always socialist if not outright communist in their ideology.

"...the Sandinistas were heavily influenced by Marixst-Leninist teachings, as the party leaders themselves sometimes admitted, but they interpreted these ideas in the context of their view of Nicaragua"s history. Specifically, they thought of themselves as a Leninist vanguard party, a group of "professional revolutionaries" that would unite the Nicaraguan workers and peasants to destroy the "present system of capitalist exploitation and oppression" run by the Somoza dynasty and supported by the United States.
https://www.brown.edu...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 12:27:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 12:24:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:52:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

I'm no fan of Sanders, and think he probably is an extremist, but in this case he was very careful not to say anything which could be used to associated him with the political practices of Castro or any of these socialists. He used vague phrases like "Impressive" (which applies even to Hitler) and "Totally Transformed" , and his main point was just that "these guys aren't as bad as we're lead to believe". He even invokes a ridiculous strawman to separate himself from Castro: "Sanders insisted that he did not mean to suggest "that Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect; they certainly are not." Of course they're not perfect. Literally no one would think you thought that, Mr. Sanders.

In the video, Sanders goes on about how he considered the Sandinistas to be justified in their insurrection because they were fighting for 1) Nicaraguan nationalism, and 2) proletariat-leaning policies that would seek to distribute wealth amongst the working class by shattering supposedly US-backed monopolistic industries.

The Sandinistas outside of their nationalism were always socialist if not outright communist in their ideology.

"...the Sandinistas were heavily influenced by Marixst-Leninist teachings, as the party leaders themselves sometimes admitted, but they interpreted these ideas in the context of their view of Nicaragua"s history. Specifically, they thought of themselves as a Leninist vanguard party, a group of "professional revolutionaries" that would unite the Nicaraguan workers and peasants to destroy the "present system of capitalist exploitation and oppression" run by the Somoza dynasty and supported by the United States.
https://www.brown.edu...

Oh, I didn't actually watch the video. Did he include a ton of qualifiers in order to separate himself from their ideology?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 12:31:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 12:27:38 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 12:24:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:52:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

I'm no fan of Sanders, and think he probably is an extremist, but in this case he was very careful not to say anything which could be used to associated him with the political practices of Castro or any of these socialists. He used vague phrases like "Impressive" (which applies even to Hitler) and "Totally Transformed" , and his main point was just that "these guys aren't as bad as we're lead to believe". He even invokes a ridiculous strawman to separate himself from Castro: "Sanders insisted that he did not mean to suggest "that Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect; they certainly are not." Of course they're not perfect. Literally no one would think you thought that, Mr. Sanders.

In the video, Sanders goes on about how he considered the Sandinistas to be justified in their insurrection because they were fighting for 1) Nicaraguan nationalism, and 2) proletariat-leaning policies that would seek to distribute wealth amongst the working class by shattering supposedly US-backed monopolistic industries.

The Sandinistas outside of their nationalism were always socialist if not outright communist in their ideology.

"...the Sandinistas were heavily influenced by Marixst-Leninist teachings, as the party leaders themselves sometimes admitted, but they interpreted these ideas in the context of their view of Nicaragua"s history. Specifically, they thought of themselves as a Leninist vanguard party, a group of "professional revolutionaries" that would unite the Nicaraguan workers and peasants to destroy the "present system of capitalist exploitation and oppression" run by the Somoza dynasty and supported by the United States.
https://www.brown.edu...

Oh, I didn't actually watch the video. Did he include a ton of qualifiers in order to separate himself from their ideology?

He went on about how he thought the Sandinistas were doing good by going against the monopolistic and capitalist system instituted by the US through the US's support of the current regime. It sounded like Sanders doing his socialistic thing.

I mean, it just really hammers home that if people elect Sanders, it would be a refutation of the entire justification for Cold-war era politics. That's a pretty big statement for America to make, IMHO. It's extremist and revolutionary.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Fly
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 2:26:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

Sanders aligns himself most with the ideologies of countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. We have not made war against these countries. They are allies, in fact.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:43:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 12:24:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:52:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

I'm no fan of Sanders, and think he probably is an extremist, but in this case he was very careful not to say anything which could be used to associated him with the political practices of Castro or any of these socialists. He used vague phrases like "Impressive" (which applies even to Hitler) and "Totally Transformed" , and his main point was just that "these guys aren't as bad as we're lead to believe". He even invokes a ridiculous strawman to separate himself from Castro: "Sanders insisted that he did not mean to suggest "that Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect; they certainly are not." Of course they're not perfect. Literally no one would think you thought that, Mr. Sanders.

In the video, Sanders goes on about how he considered the Sandinistas to be justified in their insurrection because they were fighting for 1) Nicaraguan nationalism, and 2) proletariat-leaning policies that would seek to distribute wealth amongst the working class by shattering supposedly US-backed monopolistic industries.

There are very few people who are well-versed in the history of Nicaragua who don't think that the revolution was justified. It would be painfully ironic for the UNITED STATES to be aghast at the concept of a people uniting to overthrow a dictatorial dynasty.

The Sandinistas outside of their nationalism were always socialist if not outright communist in their ideology.

"...the Sandinistas were heavily influenced by Marixst-Leninist teachings, as the party leaders themselves sometimes admitted, but they interpreted these ideas in the context of their view of Nicaragua"s history. Specifically, they thought of themselves as a Leninist vanguard party, a group of "professional revolutionaries" that would unite the Nicaraguan workers and peasants to destroy the "present system of capitalist exploitation and oppression" run by the Somoza dynasty and supported by the United States.
https://www.brown.edu...

They also supported democracy. The fact that their party has been voted out of and back into power numerous times undermines the idea that they are in any way equivalent to other, more authoritarian communist regimes which Americans typically find distasteful.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:49:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 9:43:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/5/2015 12:24:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

There are very few people who are well-versed in the history of Nicaragua who don't think that the revolution was justified. It would be painfully ironic for the UNITED STATES to be aghast at the concept of a people uniting to overthrow a dictatorial dynasty.

They also supported democracy. The fact that their party has been voted out of and back into power numerous times undermines the idea that they are in any way equivalent to other, more authoritarian communist regimes which Americans typically find distasteful.

All good points, and I would simply note that the US has demonstrated that it does not care about democracies in other countries if those democracies are not aligned with us politically. It really does call into question the validity of Cold War rhetoric. The thing is though, is America prepared to have this kind of discussion publicly? Because that's what a Sanders candidacy will end up being.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:54:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would also note that regardless of whatever totalitarian connotations the US routinely associated with the USSR and China, the US was not above supporting totalitarian regimes, as long as they were rabidly anti-communist and strongly aligned with the US. The Sandinistas do not fit either description.

Again, I really think a Sanders candidacy would call into question the entire US justification for the Cold War. It would be very, very messy (if people actually pay attention to any of it).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:57:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 2:26:04 AM, Fly wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

Sanders aligns himself most with the ideologies of countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. We have not made war against these countries. They are allies, in fact.

Not relevant to the fact that Sanders has also aligned himself with the ideologies of countries that the US has militarily engaged with.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:59:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 11:52:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:34:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

Except that's not what he said.

I didn't say anything about what Sanders said. This is a strawman. My argument is that we have militarily engaged against other "democratic socialist" regimes largely because of their ideology, and that Sanders shares this ideology with those regimes.

All that he said is that Reagan misrepresented how unpopular and abusive these regimes are in order to bolster support for proxy wars, which is completely accurate. He stated that he didn't think that they were ideal, just that the negative perception of them is overblown.

So the Cold War should never have existed, according to Sanders. Do you agree with this?

I think that the Cold War was more poorly handled in the Americas. Most Americans, when asked the specific question, are not fond of the idea of the US propping up dictators as a buffer against communism. Their distaste for supporting groups which didn't back their values was also made apparent when Congress banned support for the Contras. Most Americans who know anything about the region are not fond of Trujillo, Batista, and the Somozas, and are not happy about our supporting them. It's silly to equate all socialist regimes to one monolithic group; China and Russia were often on very icy terms with one another. By supporting dictators in the region we set ourselves up as enemies of the people of those cultures, so that when the rebellion did come it was easy for them to be be brought into the USSR-aligned fold instead of being more friendly. It undermined our moral authority in ways which can still be felt, and resulted not in a buffer zone but in a group of distinctly unfriendly governments popping up to the South. Our policies in the Americas were a colossal blunder for which we are still paying the diplomatic consequences.

The question remains: had the US not backed hated dictators of the region, would socialist revolutionaries ever have gained a foothold to begin with, and, if they had, would those regimes have been hostile to the US? Most of the hostility, and the alliance of convenience with the USSR, were indirectly caused by our own actions in the region.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 10:10:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 9:59:29 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:52:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:34:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/4/2015 11:25:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:07:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If Sanders is a communist for saying a few nice things about the Sandinistas, then Reagan was a terrorist for covertly funding the Contras against the wishes of Congress and engaging in propaganda campaigns in their favor. And his point is salient: internal support for these political groups is strong; hence our need to destabilize the Sandinistas to begin with, and the resilience of Cuba in spite of our embargo. This is just a dumb talking point.

How is this a "dumb talking point"? This would highlight that what Sanders is representing, "democratic socialism", runs against ideologies that both Democrats (via Kennedy) and Republicans (via Reagan) have militarily opposed in the past. This just emphasizes what a lot of people already associate with Sanders, that he's a revolutionary, more than likely an extremist.

About "terrorism", I think the war on terror in general is a ridiculous misnomer. Of course the USFG is the world's largest terrorist organization.

Except that's not what he said.

I didn't say anything about what Sanders said. This is a strawman. My argument is that we have militarily engaged against other "democratic socialist" regimes largely because of their ideology, and that Sanders shares this ideology with those regimes.

All that he said is that Reagan misrepresented how unpopular and abusive these regimes are in order to bolster support for proxy wars, which is completely accurate. He stated that he didn't think that they were ideal, just that the negative perception of them is overblown.

So the Cold War should never have existed, according to Sanders. Do you agree with this?

I think that the Cold War was more poorly handled in the Americas. Most Americans, when asked the specific question, are not fond of the idea of the US propping up dictators as a buffer against communism.

See, the thing is, how the US handled the Cold War in the Americas is consistent with how they handled it in other parts of the world. East Asia is a very, very troublesome example of this, because the US supported totalitarian regimes for decades there because they were rabidly anti-communist. Those same regimes are still staunch allies for us in the region.

If you begin to call in to question things like the Sandinistas, you'd have to also question US justification for supporting totalitarianism in our other allies.

. By supporting dictators in the region we set ourselves up as enemies of the people of those cultures, so that when the rebellion did come it was easy for them to be be brought into the USSR-aligned fold instead of being more friendly.

Again, this did not happen in east Asia.

It undermined our moral authority in ways which can still be felt, and resulted not in a buffer zone but in a group of distinctly unfriendly governments popping up to the South. Our policies in the Americas were a colossal blunder for which we are still paying the diplomatic consequences.

lol, "moral authority"...

You know I'm a realist, so you probably know what I will say to that.

The question remains: had the US not backed hated dictators of the region, would socialist revolutionaries ever have gained a foothold to begin with, and, if they had, would those regimes have been hostile to the US? Most of the hostility, and the alliance of convenience with the USSR, were indirectly caused by our own actions in the region.

So it sounds like what you're saying here is that the US was consistent in applying its Cold War ideology to support any regime that was anti-communist, and that this policy led to mixed results (success in places like east Asia, west Germany, failure in places like Central America). This would point to other factors not relevant to Cold War rhetoric that would explain the stances that American friends and enemies have for or against us.

You probably know what I will conclude, that it's the realist perspective that matters, that the Cold War was just a cover for both the USSR and the US to pursue hegemonic policies. But, I'm cognizant that the vast majority of the electorate simply does not think this way, and most probably would hold a moralistic argument like yours above. Not only is it my opinion that that argument is not valid, but it does seem that a Sanders candidacy would also severely question the validity of that moral argument.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 12:46:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 9:54:00 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Again, I really think a Sanders candidacy would call into question the entire US justification for the Cold War. It would be very, very messy (if people actually pay attention to any of it).

I don't understand why this matters (or even why it's true). Mind elaborating?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 12:59:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is your argument that if the United States elects a socialist president, then it's basically admitting that communism wasn't worth fighting to prevent from spreading? I don't think that's necessarily true. Back then, people had good reason to think socialism was a force for evil, because the only examples of socialism we had were brutal totalitarian regimes. And by electing Bernie Sanders, the United States isn't conceding that Communism is justified.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 12:59:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is your argument that if the United States elects a socialist president, then it's basically admitting that communism wasn't worth fighting to prevent from spreading? I don't think that's necessarily true. Back then, people had good reason to think socialism was a force for evil, because the only examples of socialism we had were brutal totalitarian regimes. And by electing Bernie Sanders, the United States isn't conceding that Communism is justified.


I would argue that the underlined is simply not true.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:11:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would also point out that Sanders is advocating for a half-trillion dollar tax hike on just one industry in the US - Wall Street. There is every indication that he is just getting started when it comes to dramatically increasing the scope of USFG spending.

Electing Sanders will indeed turn the USFG into a gigantic, monolithic institution reminiscent of other socialist experiments in what we have deemed to be totalitarian regimes in the past.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:07:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 12:59:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is your argument that if the United States elects a socialist president, then it's basically admitting that communism wasn't worth fighting to prevent from spreading? I don't think that's necessarily true. Back then, people had good reason to think socialism was a force for evil, because the only examples of socialism we had were brutal totalitarian regimes. And by electing Bernie Sanders, the United States isn't conceding that Communism is justified.


I would argue that the underlined is simply not true.

Okay, maybe not ALL of them, but enough to cause concern.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:16:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:11:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also point out that Sanders is advocating for a half-trillion dollar tax hike on just one industry in the US - Wall Street. There is every indication that he is just getting started when it comes to dramatically increasing the scope of USFG spending.

Electing Sanders will indeed turn the USFG into a gigantic, monolithic institution reminiscent of other socialist experiments in what we have deemed to be totalitarian regimes in the past.

You sound like Ann Coulter.

Even if Bernie Sanders wants to turn the United States into a socialist paradise, it's not like he has the power to make it happen.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:18:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:12:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:07:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 12:59:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is your argument that if the United States elects a socialist president, then it's basically admitting that communism wasn't worth fighting to prevent from spreading? I don't think that's necessarily true. Back then, people had good reason to think socialism was a force for evil, because the only examples of socialism we had were brutal totalitarian regimes. And by electing Bernie Sanders, the United States isn't conceding that Communism is justified.


I would argue that the underlined is simply not true.

Okay, maybe not ALL of them, but enough to cause concern.

I mean, when you point to the Scandinavian countries, they don't have the military apparatus that we have...they basically benefit from our provision of security via alliances like NATO.

Our military apparatus is not only huge...the only thing that dwarfs it is current entitlement spending. Dramatically increasing entitlement spending on top of this IMHO will give the government an enormous amount of power to dictate the lives of Americans. I have serious doubts on the transferability of the Scandinavian system to the US...I'd like to see far more discussion on such an issue before ever taking a Sanders candidacy seriously.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:18:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:16:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:11:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also point out that Sanders is advocating for a half-trillion dollar tax hike on just one industry in the US - Wall Street. There is every indication that he is just getting started when it comes to dramatically increasing the scope of USFG spending.

Electing Sanders will indeed turn the USFG into a gigantic, monolithic institution reminiscent of other socialist experiments in what we have deemed to be totalitarian regimes in the past.

You sound like Ann Coulter.

I'm fairly certain Bernie Sanders doesn't even register on the GOP radar yet.

Even if Bernie Sanders wants to turn the United States into a socialist paradise, it's not like he has the power to make it happen.

Why wouldn't he? He'd be POTUS.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:20:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:18:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:16:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:11:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also point out that Sanders is advocating for a half-trillion dollar tax hike on just one industry in the US - Wall Street. There is every indication that he is just getting started when it comes to dramatically increasing the scope of USFG spending.

Electing Sanders will indeed turn the USFG into a gigantic, monolithic institution reminiscent of other socialist experiments in what we have deemed to be totalitarian regimes in the past.

You sound like Ann Coulter.

I'm fairly certain Bernie Sanders doesn't even register on the GOP radar yet.

Even if Bernie Sanders wants to turn the United States into a socialist paradise, it's not like he has the power to make it happen.

Why wouldn't he? He'd be POTUS.

Because the POTUS doesn't have dictatorial power. He can't even pass laws.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:20:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:18:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:16:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:11:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also point out that Sanders is advocating for a half-trillion dollar tax hike on just one industry in the US - Wall Street. There is every indication that he is just getting started when it comes to dramatically increasing the scope of USFG spending.

Electing Sanders will indeed turn the USFG into a gigantic, monolithic institution reminiscent of other socialist experiments in what we have deemed to be totalitarian regimes in the past.

You sound like Ann Coulter.

I'm fairly certain Bernie Sanders doesn't even register on the GOP radar yet.

Even if Bernie Sanders wants to turn the United States into a socialist paradise, it's not like he has the power to make it happen.

Why wouldn't he? He'd be POTUS.

Because the POTUS doesn't have dictatorial power. He can't even pass laws.

There would be no one in the world more capable of making it happen than the POTUS.

Just look at what George W. Bush was able to accomplish during his 8 years. He turned this country into a police state.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:21:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:18:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:12:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:07:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 12:59:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is your argument that if the United States elects a socialist president, then it's basically admitting that communism wasn't worth fighting to prevent from spreading? I don't think that's necessarily true. Back then, people had good reason to think socialism was a force for evil, because the only examples of socialism we had were brutal totalitarian regimes. And by electing Bernie Sanders, the United States isn't conceding that Communism is justified.


I would argue that the underlined is simply not true.

Okay, maybe not ALL of them, but enough to cause concern.

I mean, when you point to the Scandinavian countries, they don't have the military apparatus that we have...they basically benefit from our provision of security via alliances like NATO.

Scandinavian countries aren't fanatical communists, though.


Our military apparatus is not only huge...the only thing that dwarfs it is current entitlement spending. Dramatically increasing entitlement spending on top of this IMHO will give the government an enormous amount of power to dictate the lives of Americans. I have serious doubts on the transferability of the Scandinavian system to the US...I'd like to see far more discussion on such an issue before ever taking a Sanders candidacy seriously.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 1:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 1:21:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:18:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:12:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/5/2015 1:07:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2015 12:59:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Is your argument that if the United States elects a socialist president, then it's basically admitting that communism wasn't worth fighting to prevent from spreading? I don't think that's necessarily true. Back then, people had good reason to think socialism was a force for evil, because the only examples of socialism we had were brutal totalitarian regimes. And by electing Bernie Sanders, the United States isn't conceding that Communism is justified.


I would argue that the underlined is simply not true.

Okay, maybe not ALL of them, but enough to cause concern.

I mean, when you point to the Scandinavian countries, they don't have the military apparatus that we have...they basically benefit from our provision of security via alliances like NATO.

Scandinavian countries aren't fanatical communists, though.

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that Scandinavian countries are what Sanders cites as his model for America going forward.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?