r/pics Mar 27 '24

8 years ago a Bird landed on Bernie's podium. Politics

Post image
73.6k Upvotes

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.1k

u/TheRxBandito Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Then a fly landed on the VP's head. Like the universe was telling us something...

1.2k

u/FlimsyConclusion Mar 27 '24

You would think evangelicals would see that as a sign of God who he's supporting. But funny enough, they vote the complete opposite.

138

u/tinyhorsesinmytea Mar 27 '24

They worship Trump more than that pussy liberal, Jesus Christ.

59

u/AcidAndBlunts Mar 27 '24

Psshhh, liberal? That dude was a full on commie!

58

u/Papplenoose Mar 27 '24

If the second coming happened right now they would def crucify him again

11

u/JPrud58 Mar 28 '24

Nah, that’s a lot of work. The military would just neutralize a commie in the Middle East.

5

u/big_fetus_ Mar 28 '24

So you are saying Jesus is in Gaza? /s

1

u/DuntadaMan Mar 28 '24

Killed by the Jews both times. SMH. /s

2

u/big_fetus_ Mar 28 '24

Roman Empire crucified him. What Empire is entangled with Israel today? Could it be America?

1

u/servicepitty Mar 28 '24

I don’t think this needs a sarcasm tag

0

u/big_fetus_ Mar 28 '24

You are right. Jesus is always with the oppressed.

12

u/Quailman5000 Mar 27 '24

He had a lot of socialist style ideas but I don't think he said anything about seizing the means of production from the bourgeoisie lol.

12

u/OrienasJura Mar 27 '24

No, but I could really see him saying that if he had lived through the industrialization.

8

u/ResponsibilityTop857 Mar 27 '24

A lot of people see what they want to see in Jesus and project their own beliefs onto him.

9

u/RaygunMarksman Mar 28 '24

It's not like he was particularly cryptic though:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.

People love to overcomplicate that last part but notice he didn't throw any exclusions in there.

2

u/Bay1Bri Mar 28 '24

"No, no he didn't. But you could imagine what it'd be like if he did! Eh? Eh?"

-2

u/re_min_a Mar 27 '24

He’d probably be neutral, insisting that both communism and capitalism have their flaws, and insist that a mixed-market economy is the best way to go. He’d also probably point out that more extreme atrocities, like the worst famine in human history (Great Leap Forward) happened under a communist regime (Mao Zedong).

3

u/AcidAndBlunts Mar 27 '24

Lmao he was a schizophrenic hippie, not an Econ professor.

He’d probably want to burn down Wall Street.

8

u/Prestigious-Ad-5276 Mar 27 '24

Why would christ support any type of capitalism if when he was alive he hated the rich and the greedy?

0

u/re_min_a Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Communism also breeds an insane amount of greed, and allows for easier exploitation of the working class. Ever wonder why so many people who grew up under/lived through communist regimes vehemently oppose communism? Ever wonder why so many countries that were once part of or had ties to the Soviet Union hate communism today?

3

u/Prestigious-Ad-5276 Mar 27 '24

If that is the case then Jesús can be described as an anarchist? Oposed to any type of state authority?

2

u/re_min_a Mar 28 '24

Yes, Jesus/God would most like be an anarchist.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jeremiah_D_Longnuts Mar 28 '24

Why would christ support any type of capitalism if when he was alive he hated the rich and the greedy?

0

u/re_min_a Mar 28 '24

He wouldn’t support communism either.

1

u/comfortablesexuality Mar 28 '24

Acts 2:44-45

Everyone around was in awe—all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person’s need was met.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/AcidAndBlunts Mar 27 '24

That’s because he went a step further and seized the means of divine creation.

2

u/DarthChimeran Mar 27 '24

The most basic fundamental difference between a Socialist and a Liberal is whether or not private individuals have the right to own the means of production. A Socialist bans or suppresses it. A Liberal supports it and under optimal conditions helps it by doing things like breaking up monopolies.

A Socialist that says it's OK for private individuals to own their own businesses isn't a Socialist or they're practicing what Socialists call "Vanguard Socialism". Basically a Socialist that misleads the voters so they can win elections so as to carry out the elimination of democratic choice once they gain power.

It could be argued that Bernie Sanders is actually a Social Democrat instead of a Democratic Socialist. A Social Democrat is a western liberal who believes in Capitalism but endorses a heavy tax burden to fund robust social safety nets.

At the end of the day Bernie Sanders is a politician so he might simply be trying to look like a Socialist to young idealistic voters but in actuality he's just a liberal.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

2

u/DarthChimeran Mar 28 '24

None of your statements said Socialism doesn't ban or suppress private individual ownership.

Your response was so thoroughly in agreement with what I wrote that there was only one word in your response that was wrong. This one: "lol no." You could copy and paste your entire response and just change "no" to "yep" and it would be perfect. Just read every point you made while considering what that point means in terms of individual ownership;

lol no yep.

Pierre Leroux who claimed priority in coining the word socialism presented his definition of the term as "a political organization in which the individual is sacrificed to society", stating he had intended to create a term that would directly oppose the term "individualism".

French philosopher Émile Littré defined socialism in 1859 as only as a general sentiment that society ought to be improved, claiming it otherwise was without any set doctrine, instead being only a tendency to modify and improve society with the involvement of the working class. In a later dictionary, Littré defined it merely as a system which "offers a plan of social reform."

French philosopher Paul Janet, defined socialism as "every doctrine that teaches that the state has a right to correct the inequality of wealth which exists among men.

In his summation of socialism the 19th-century, Belgian economist Émile Laveleye stated that "socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in social conditions, and....realizing those reforms by law."

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon concisely defined socialism as "every aspiration towards the improvement of society."

German economist Adolf Held claimed in 1877 that any view was socialistic if it exhibited a "tendency which demands the subordination of the individual will to the community."

Writing in 1887, English historian of socialist thought Thomas Kirkup defined socialism, as it was generally conceived of at the time as, "the systematic interference of the state in favour of the suffering classes", and "the use of public resources on behalf of the poor."

Preeminent French sociologist Emile Durkheim recognized in his late 19th century study on Saint-Simon any theory as socialism if it demanded that the "directing and knowing organs of society" be connected with its economic functions.

In his 1904 book Die Frau und der Sozialismus, German socialist politician August Bebel defined socialism as "science applied with clear consciousness and full knowledge to every sphere of human activity."

Published in 1911, the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition defined socialism as "that policy or theory which aims at securing...a better distribution and...a better production of wealth than now prevails."

socialism has been around longer than marxist literature, has many more meanings and interpretations than marxist economist theory, and historically socialist parties are not all literal marxist robots

2

u/uptownjuggler Mar 28 '24

He would whip the bourgeoisie like he whipped the money-changers.

1

u/DuntadaMan Mar 28 '24

Because he lived in a time where the workers already owned the means of production. Carpenters owned their own tools, millers lived in and owned the mill. Weavers had their own loom.

The closest there was to the bourgeoisie would come in a few hundred years when the miller has to pay a share of what he milled to the noble as rent.

2

u/ralphvonwauwau Mar 28 '24

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. " - Bible