SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One of the potential final pairings in the coming US Presidential is Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump. Even from an outward appearance there is a stark contrast between the two, with Bernie's unkempt white locks on one side and Donald's Full Head of Hair (TM) on the other.
Bernie's campaign is asked about his appearance on a regular basis, and their response has moved to "enough about the hair already". His appearance is less of the traditional politician, and one of Bernie Sanders, the leftist politician.
While hair may seem a minor detail for the leader of the United States compared to qualifications like experience or political position, but this Princeton study states that a quick appraisal of a picture of the candidates appearance is in line with 70 percent of U.S. senate and state governor elections in 2006. The original paper from 2007 can be found at PNAS.org.
(Score: 5, Informative) by richtopia on Sunday November 22 2015, @04:50PM
Bernie's approach typically mimics the Nordic model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model [wikipedia.org] which combines a welfare state with private ownership. Not communist, but left of center for the United States of America, and left of most major US candidates.
I was also confused about the pro-war position; first I don't think that communism is inherently pro/anti war. Otherwise Sander's record has been to no support the actions in Iraq. His stance on ISIS is to support the fight but not to lead, which is in-line with many politicians. More importantly to me he has spoken out against NSA surveillance programs which are typically justified by the war on terror.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2015, @08:45PM
the Nordic model
Yes. I have used the terms Liberal Democracy and Social Democracy.
Bernie wants to return to the social safety net established under Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society (which were dismantled piece by piece by Reactionaries after the deaths of those Right-Center Populists).
...and Barry Goldwater (called Mr. Conservative in his time) was in favor of paying people properly for their labor as well as making sure they were healthy and had a stable existence in old age.
The biggest problem is the terminology used by Fox so-called News, et al, which calls radicals "conservative" and calls Right-Centrists "leftists".
It is dishonest and meant to get weak minds to accept that garbage without questioning it.
Bernie's approach typically [is] left of center for the United States
Again, only if you accept Lamestream Media's dishonest spin on where the vertical centerline is. [politicalcompass.org]
Note that the only member of the Democrat Party who made it onto that chart and was actually left of center (and south of the Authoritarian-vs-Civil Libertarian dividing line) is Dennis Kucinich.
Again, if you don't hold that collective ownership of the means of production is necessary for a stable society, you are **not** "Left".
If you think (as Adam Smith suggested in his work over 200 years ago and, more recently, Thomas Piketty has identified in his 700-page work) that Capitalism leads to a very unequal society with the wealthy in complete control of both business and government and the Working Class having zero voice in matters, you *are* thinking like a Leftist.
I don't think that communism is inherently [...] anti war
Substitute the word "anti-Imperialist" for "anti-war" and see if it makes more sense to you.
I challenge you to name a military engagement since the end of WWII[1] that wasn't a big guy trying to expand his sphere of influence.
When you have to go thousands and thousands of miles to find an enemy, that is clearly not "defense".
The last time USA fought a defensive action was the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.
[1] ...and it can easily be argued that WWII was completely avoidable because it was about Imperialism which resulted from issues that weren't properly addressed after WWI.
Sander's record has been to [not] support the actions in Iraq
Bernie has dragged his feet enough to allow people to say that sort of thing but he caves fairly easily on funding military actions by USA.
If you want to see someone who actually anti-war, look up Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
justified by the war on terror
Terrorism isn't an ideology--it's a method.
Declaring war on a method is really dumb.
Terrorist methods are crimes.
The way you deal with crimes is to deploy cops.
If your cops are really good at what they do, plans are thwarted before they turn into actions.
(A narrow, preventative focus--not broad, random murderous aggression.)
Within your own borders you can have freedom but there can be no guarantee of total safety.
Destroying freedom to get a bad version of safety is just lame.
Going thousands of miles to murder brown people's children doesn't make us safer; it just gets those people even more pissed off at us.
...and, in any western country, you have a bigger chance of being killed by lightning or having a fatal fall in the bathtub than being killed by a terrorist.
Terrorism is a manifestation of the problem but the actual problem is Extremism.
...and abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph and anti-gov't nutjob Tim McVeigh show that the threat defined as being from brown-skinned foreigners without an air force or navy who were last successful 14 years ago is out of all proportion.
-- gewg_