The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign

Yes, and those meanings depend on context and change over time, as the English language eternally evolves, which is exemplified by the Oxford English Dictionary.The word "socialism" used to primarily mean worker ownership of the means of production. In the USA, the word "socialism" means Social Democrat, a term quite familiar to Europeans, which means you *actually* give a fuck about your citizens and show it by not making their lives both "brutish and short'.I was in Atlanta early last August for the National Convention of the Democratic Socialists of America as a voting alternate member. That's one of over 1000, so my personal definition of socialism as voted on at it's most representative body in the USA counts as much as Elizabeth Warren's native ancestry claim, which is
around 1/1024.I am actually to the left of Sanders, as I believe Facebook, Google, PG&E, etc. should be bought out and all stock holding shares given to the workers of those companies. As for any compensation for any former major stockholders, I think that should be done after the money stolen from the workers in the form of sweatshop conditions or due to underpaying workers and letting the taxpayers pick up the tab in EBT and Medicaid is refunded.Welfare queens indeed.However, I am not entirely representative of the DSA at large.The support for Sanders in the DSA is pretty unanimous, so it appears the USA definition of socialist, right here, right now, is real close to his platform.

Here is the most recent data:

quote:

---

Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68000 lives and 173 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

---

source So I guess the current system requires us, not only to kill 68,000 per year, but also to pay an extra 450 billion per year for the privilege of murdering the innocent.This is one of the several reasons I support Sanders. Also, I do not think fear of the word "socialism" is worth 68,000 lives.Clearly others disagree.

I agree with your observation. I was likely thinking more of WalMart or Amazon than Google or Facebook (which I despise for other reasons).Thanks for pointing this out.

The voters in the USA made their choice, the majority of Democrats prefer our current healthcare system regardless of the consequences as do nearly all Republicans.Still want to deny healthcare to "the least among us." Your precious DJIA may require it.

Here's the history. Katie Halper original audio interview with Tara Reade. Ryan Grim's original print story. Notice the March 24 date. No coverage by MSM until NYT story exonerating Biden dated April 12 The Biden campaign insisted they edit out the line "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet indicated that the second half of the sentence was deleted as a result of a complaint from the Biden campaign. one source out of several. Baquet is a welfare queen cashing unearned paychecks. The Executive Editor at the NYT is the Biden campaign. Ryan Grim also broke the Christine Blasey Ford story. Real journalists report, fake ones propagandize.Edited by anglagard, : Bad URL ending.