Bernie Sanders was for the nationalization of most major industries

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,843
643
113
#1
Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described "radical political party" in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

Sanders' past views shed light on a formative period of his political career that could become relevant as he advances in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today and could provide fodder for moderate Democrats and Republicans looking to cast the Democratic presidential candidate and his beliefs as a fringe form of socialism that would be harmful to the country.

Aspects of Sanders' plans and time in the Liberty Union have been reported before, but the material taken together, including hundreds of newly digitalized newspapers and files from the Liberty Union Party archived at the University of Vermont, paint a fuller portrait of Sanders' views on state and public-controlled industry at the time.

Full story:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html
 

UnderGrace

Senior Member
May 8, 2016
6,215
2,848
113
#2
Of course the politicians have made a mess of the Constitutional Republic and the Free Market Economy where else can they turn ...of course yes we can push for democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism now there is a contradiction in terms

Okay Mr. Locutus, on your mark ...get set.... go Ill be waiting waiting.gif ...you are keeping me from getting my work done, no matter it can wait.




Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described "radical political party" in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

Sanders' past views shed light on a formative period of his political career that could become relevant as he advances in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today and could provide fodder for moderate Democrats and Republicans looking to cast the Democratic presidential candidate and his beliefs as a fringe form of socialism that would be harmful to the country.

Aspects of Sanders' plans and time in the Liberty Union have been reported before, but the material taken together, including hundreds of newly digitalized newspapers and files from the Liberty Union Party archived at the University of Vermont, paint a fuller portrait of Sanders' views on state and public-controlled industry at the time.

Full story:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,843
643
113
#4
It's very rare I find meself at a loss for words BigSmile.gif
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,843
643
113
#5
From what I's reading currently:

Putin not only harnessed a base of rising white consciousness, he found that promises of Russian riches would bring those ideas directly to their elected representatives. When oligarch money was being represented, every one of them cleared their calendar to
listen.

Russia would destabilize through the conservative right-wing. These millionaires and billionaires, particularly in the Trump campaign, working for their own self-interest, would advance the policies and goals of the Kremlin in exchange for a seat at the table with wealthy fellow travelers. The Vote to Destroy Democracy Democracy itself would be the weapon that would bring down democracy. The vote would be the infectious vector—so long as the people are of one mind, they would vote their own democracy out of existence.

Politicians in America would help forge a global economic alliance based on personal financial gain and self-interest. And Europe would follow. In America, the Mexican migration would become a horde of raping, pillaging invaders. In Europe, the Syrian and African migration would challenge the concept of being “European.” These efforts to be inclusive, diverse, and liberal would be put to the test against the greatest psychological operations machine in history. With the right propaganda, fake news, and politicians willing to compromise their own national interest for the right amount of cash, the avaricious masses may be willing to reconsider autocracy as an alternative to democracy and the key to future advancement.

Perhaps with the narrative framed properly, it would give them a new window from which to look for an exit. Promises of new riches in formerly closed markets such as Russia would make them embrace a more highly focused leadership and convert some of the inhibitions of democracy to global greatness.

Nance, Malcolm W.. The Plot to Destroy Democracy (p. 189). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition.
 

UnderGrace

Senior Member
May 8, 2016
6,215
2,848
113
#6
global economic alliance based on personal financial gain and self-interest.
Yes this is exactly it!:cool:

Now what they plan for (the elites) and what they accomplish is not always one and the same, there is a lot of infighting amongst the competing groups.

I'm gonna have to go get me a cold pop and look up that book.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,843
643
113
#7
Here's more:

The autocrat’s argument is that one tribe—the dominant tribe—is better suited to lead the key nations of the West. The move would be to convince the Western conservative to embrace autocratic government as a hammer to build a cultural bridge of white Western conservatism from Eastern Europe, to Central Europe, and finally to the Americas. Together they would confront the challenges of the Muslim world.

A core component to bringing Western European and American political establishments around to Moscow’s way of thinking was to join the common cause against terrorism. Russia too had been subject to Islamic extremist terrorism.

The 2004 Chechen suicide-hostage barricades at Beslan elementary school had ended with 334 women and schoolchildren dead. The village raids inside of Russia where men, women, children, and the elderly were roped together and forced to walk as human shields by Chechen guerillas had also killed hundreds.

The Chechen Muslim extremists were hard-core and Putin had stamped them out brutally in the second Chechnya war. That he committed atrocities not seen since World War II was beside the point. Russia argued that the 9/11 attacks and Russia’s own massacres were a common cause that both Americans and Russians were locked in deadly wars to stamp out terrorists.

Both Republican and Russian political bodies sought a higher meaning to the fight against Islamic terrorists. American Republicans saw it as a global crusade in the literal sense of the words. Many thought it was time for a religious reckoning with Islam as a whole.

Many Russian and European right-wing politicians agreed. After nearly a decade of bloodletting (of mainly Muslim blood) some were calling on an alliance to fight Islam alongside of Russia. They sought a clash of civilizations.

Nance, Malcolm W.. The Plot to Destroy Democracy (p. 190). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition.
 

UnderGrace

Senior Member
May 8, 2016
6,215
2,848
113
#8
Need to think on this a bit.:unsure:

Here's more:

The autocrat’s argument is that one tribe—the dominant tribe—is better suited to lead the key nations of the West. The move would be to convince the Western conservative to embrace autocratic government as a hammer to build a cultural bridge of white Western conservatism from Eastern Europe, to Central Europe, and finally to the Americas. Together they would confront the challenges of the Muslim world.

A core component to bringing Western European and American political establishments around to Moscow’s way of thinking was to join the common cause against terrorism. Russia too had been subject to Islamic extremist terrorism.

The 2004 Chechen suicide-hostage barricades at Beslan elementary school had ended with 334 women and schoolchildren dead. The village raids inside of Russia where men, women, children, and the elderly were roped together and forced to walk as human shields by Chechen guerillas had also killed hundreds.

The Chechen Muslim extremists were hard-core and Putin had stamped them out brutally in the second Chechnya war. That he committed atrocities not seen since World War II was beside the point. Russia argued that the 9/11 attacks and Russia’s own massacres were a common cause that both Americans and Russians were locked in deadly wars to stamp out terrorists.

Both Republican and Russian political bodies sought a higher meaning to the fight against Islamic terrorists. American Republicans saw it as a global crusade in the literal sense of the words. Many thought it was time for a religious reckoning with Islam as a whole.

Many Russian and European right-wing politicians agreed. After nearly a decade of bloodletting (of mainly Muslim blood) some were calling on an alliance to fight Islam alongside of Russia. They sought a clash of civilizations.

Nance, Malcolm W.. The Plot to Destroy Democracy (p. 190). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,843
643
113
#10
More from the "book"

The terrorism we experience worldwide today is a direct reading of the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. Even with both men dead, the spark of an individual jihad designed to stoke hatred of Muslims required Western politicians to embrace that spark for their own political needs.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are two who have taken up the challenge. They believe that both Eastern and Western Christianity must come together with the objective to set aside the Old World Order created after WWII, and create three pillars of a new conservative Christian global leadership:

1) American conservatives would rule in the Western Hemisphere;

2) France would lead an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant alliance of ultra-right-wing governments from Poland to Britain; and

3) in the East, the strong ultranationalists of Russia would support, finance, and defend this new alliance.

In a Foreign Affairs piece “How Democracies Fall Apart,” authors Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council, and Erica Frantz detail how populism can easily lead to autocracy.

They note the increase in democratically elected “strongmen” such as Putin, al-Sisi in Egypt, Duterte in the Philippines, and Erdogan in Turkey, is due to their ability to capitalize on citizen grievances: “These leaders first come to power through democratic elections and subsequently harness widespread discontent to gradually undermine institutional constraints on their rule, marginalize the opposition, and erode civil society.”

Nance, Malcolm W.. The Plot to Destroy Democracy (p. 192). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,843
643
113
#11
This is interesting:

The world has been under threat of losing democracies to ideologies for decades. However, there has been a wave of authoritarian states growing and directly challenging the established norms. Andrea Kendall Taylor and Erica Frantz wrote, “In the last decade, however, populist-fueled ‘authoritarianization’ has been on failures between 2000 and 2010 and matching coups in frequency.”2 They continued: “Data show that just under half (44 percent) of all instances of ‘authoritarianization’ from 1946 to 1999 led to the establishment of personalist dictatorships.

From 2000 to 2010, however, that proportion increased to 75 percent. In most cases, the populist strongmen rose to power with the support of a political party but then proved effective in sidelining competing voices from within.”3 Venezuela is a good example. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela came to power through a wave of populism spouting whichever tropes worked at the moment that he spoke. He called his ideology Bolivarianism, named after the General Simon Bolivar who defeated the Spanish colonialists and is widely revered in Latin America.

Chavez created a mélange of social justice, street action, and Marxist platitudes to be elected numerous times in a wave of populism. He slowly and systematically dismantled the democratic pillars of Venezuela before nationalizing all the country’s oil industry. Once that was complete, he used state power and oil money to remain in power until his death. His successor, Nicholas Maduro, maintained the populist mantle has become a beacon of personal corruption.

The nation is devoid of food with people thronging the border to be able to buy even the simplest foodstuffs. The situation became so bad that in 2018 the international community and the United Nations offered to provide food aid, but like all dictators, Maduro refused unless the demoralized opposition accepted his government’s National Constituent Assembly, a rubber stamp body that would invest in him all national power. This is the crushing power of a populist dictator.

Invariably, their greatest enemy is democracy, which they always immediately seek to stamp out. It should be noted that Russia is Venezuela’s strongest partner in the oil trade and weapons sales. Russian military scholars have warned the Kremlin that Venezuela’s unrest stems from the United States trying to overthrow the regime with a “color revolution” akin to Ukraine. Some have suggested that Russia step in to stop what they believe are American-backed revolutions.

Nance, Malcolm W.. The Plot to Destroy Democracy (pp. 192-193). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition.
 

UnderGrace

Senior Member
May 8, 2016
6,215
2,848
113
#15
"We the people of the United States, in order to.. promote the general welfare"
Let us put that in context...

We the people of the United States
in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.