Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

[bripat9643]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

Define the standard for determining if a political party should be rightly described as socialist, and then everyone can decide whether or not the Democratic Party fits that definition.

If the Party is engaged in advocacy or operations to build and sustain Nanny-Statism (cradle-to-grave care and freebies for the Plebians), then that should do the trick.

No, they all make them socialists. Name any significant issue that Democrats disagree on

Oh, jeez, any negative word and it's automatically a Democrat. You people must have great fun.

Funny how you disagreed with my post, yet you couldn't answer the question. Don't worry, none of you can. You gave the stereotype liberal answer. What? That's ridiculous! Example? Crickets...

Here is the question you whiffed on again: "Name any significant issue that Democrats disagree on"

BTW, I'll be back in Europe again next week, we can resume our middle of the night debates

So what is the socialism that all Democrats agree on?

They all agree on the kind where the government runs the economy.

Really? When did they nationalize the supermarket business?

lol

That's on their agenda. It's just not the next thing on their agenda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

Define the standard for determining if a political party should be rightly described as socialist, and then everyone can decide whether or not the Democratic Party fits that definition.

If the Party is engaged in advocacy or operations to build and sustain Nanny-Statism (cradle-to-grave care and freebies for the Plebians), then that should do the trick.

Oh, jeez, any negative word and it's automatically a Democrat. You people must have great fun.

Funny how you disagreed with my post, yet you couldn't answer the question. Don't worry, none of you can. You gave the stereotype liberal answer. What? That's ridiculous! Example? Crickets...

Here is the question you whiffed on again: "Name any significant issue that Democrats disagree on"

BTW, I'll be back in Europe again next week, we can resume our middle of the night debates

So what is the socialism that all Democrats agree on?

They all agree on the kind where the government runs the economy.

Really? When did they nationalize the supermarket business?

lol

You cited the wrong person as the author of the post to which you were responding - that's not one of mine ("They all agree on the kind..." ).

That's because it's an idiosyncracy of this forum that if you quote someone but do not go ahead and make a post,
when you go to the next post you quote and reply to it, the original one remains in your post.

Yes, very confusing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

Define the standard for determining if a political party should be rightly described as socialist, and then everyone can decide whether or not the Democratic Party fits that definition.

If the Party is engaged in advocacy or operations to build and sustain Nanny-Statism (cradle-to-grave care and freebies for the Plebians), then that should do the trick.

Oh, jeez, any negative word and it's automatically a Democrat. You people must have great fun.

Funny how you disagreed with my post, yet you couldn't answer the question. Don't worry, none of you can. You gave the stereotype liberal answer. What? That's ridiculous! Example? Crickets...

Here is the question you whiffed on again: "Name any significant issue that Democrats disagree on"

BTW, I'll be back in Europe again next week, we can resume our middle of the night debates

So what is the socialism that all Democrats agree on?

They all agree on the kind where the government runs the economy.

Really? When did they nationalize the supermarket business?

lol

That's on their agenda. It's just not the next thing on their agenda.

That's you inventing 'facts' that don't exist. You're an idiot.

 

[OnePercenter]

How would ending Medicaid help poor people live longer?

USSR produced no innovations, USA produces millions. If we had more capitalist innovation medicine would advance and people would live longer.

Do you understand??

Timeline of Russian innovation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Camp]

...Nit pick over classical definitions? What is a non classical definition? Oh, I get it. We can just make stuff up to fit our agenda and call it common usage and understanding...

Oh, lighten up, Francis...

You know damned-well that if you ask the Man in the Street to define Socialism, it will equate to wraparound Nanny Statism.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ-on-a-Crutch, are you playing the next-door-neighbor to Grammar Nazi today, harping on classical definitions?

We are talking about the Common Man's perception of what a Socialist is, and you know that just as well as I do.

But - rather than focus upon the topic, which is whether or not the Common Man now equates the Democrat Party with ITS perception of Socialism, and whether the Democratic Party might just as well go ahead and admit it, and get it over with... no, you've got to pick nits.

Well, you can do it without me.

I'm moving on, to say: "Yes, the Common Man does, indeed, largely perceive the Democrats to be Socialists nowadays, insofar as the Common Man loosely defines Socialism, and this is reinforced by the advent of folks like Bernie Sanders, who appears to have a very long and broad Socialist streak running through him."

You - on the other hand - are entirely free to moan and wail about the precise definition of Socialism, but I don't think you're gonna get too many takers, outside your own clique.

End of sequence.

Sounds like you are saying some, if not most of the posters here are not intelligent enough to understand ideologies and the way they can be blended and balanced. So, lets just talk to everyone like they are third graders and keep them all stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

Define the standard for determining if a political party should be rightly described as socialist, and then everyone can decide whether or not the Democratic Party fits that definition.

If the Party is engaged in advocacy or operations to build and sustain Nanny-Statism (cradle-to-grave care and freebies for the Plebians), then that should do the trick.

Funny how you disagreed with my post, yet you couldn't answer the question. Don't worry, none of you can. You gave the stereotype liberal answer. What? That's ridiculous! Example? Crickets...

Here is the question you whiffed on again: "Name any significant issue that Democrats disagree on"

BTW, I'll be back in Europe again next week, we can resume our middle of the night debates

So what is the socialism that all Democrats agree on?

They all agree on the kind where the government runs the economy.

Really? When did they nationalize the supermarket business?

lol

That's on their agenda. It's just not the next thing on their agenda.

That's you inventing 'facts' that don't exist. You're an idiot.

It's based on the record of the Democrat party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why don't you not jump into discussions defending the Democrats if you don't want questions on your defense of the Democrats?

As for when you said, "What is the democratic party? I mean, it's people all over the spectrum. Socialists, Communists, through to people who are kind of conservative too," all the more reason it should be easy to show significant disagreement in the Democrat party, yet none of you can. The Democrats are not a healthy party, they are ideologically rigid and uncompromising

I say what I think. If that happens to be you thinking I'm defending Democrats, then that's what you think.

But again. Why do you want to show disagreement in the party. I probably could. I just don't care.

The Democratic Party is not a healthy party, nor is the Republican Party. Both these parties are huge machines that have the monopoly on telling people what to think. They work together to stifle proper political talk, they steer political arguments away from the fundamentals and keep things on certain "safe" issues, like abortion where both sides can show how different they are and think they're being really political.

I've spoken about Proportional Representation on this site, and the threads die a quick death. No one has been told to be interested, so they're not. Clearly PR is not what the big boys want. It would open up politics to other parties, other voices. It would make controlling politicians so much harder, money wouldn't buy you an election.

I've also spoken about saving money by fazing out the one dollar bill. But special interest keeps that one going. No one cares, a few make some statement about this possibly being a good idea, then that people like the dollar bill so it'll stay. It has nothing to do with that. But yet another topic that dies an early death because special interest means that they don't use this as a tool for telling people what to think.

Ideology is there. But mostly it's the ideology of big money and special interests.

Oil is a big one. Defense is there too, though not as big. But just allowing big business to keep making tons of money at the expense of others is a major factor, and people are voting for this, on both sides. US politics is not healthy and ideologically rigid.

 

[jon_berzerk]

nope fuck you

You don't know......coward.

you dumb asses claim the fire department wrongly so is socialism --LOL you bulldog are a joke

Since you have no idea what socialism is, how would you know? Right wingers have become used to calling every government program they don't like socialism because that sounds scary to them, so in their minds it is synonymous with bad. You are just confused at how a purely socialist program, which you probably like, can be the same as so many you hate. Find out what socialism is and then come back.

you are a joke

You are an idiot that can't prove me wrong.

you are an immature fool

 

[The sheeple sea]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

Well, he is an independent running on the Democratic ticket, not a Democrat entirely. And yeah, I think more and more voters are beginning to feel like its not a dirty word anymore. But to say the Democratic party is now a socialist party seems a bit of an overstatement, the Democratic leadership doesn't particularly care for Bernie as he does whatever he feels is right and does not toe the party line. I think instead this should be viewed as a breakaway from traditional Democratic party ideals by an outsider. The same could be said of the Republican party with Donald Trumps candidacy, the message here isn't a transformation of political parties or a revelation of what they really were, but that both parties are unsatisfied with the status quo within their respective parties. Understandable, given how terribly corrupt leadership is in both parties. It should not come as a surprise that the fast emerging front runners coming out of nowhere for both parties are the candidates not taking special interest money, and not being funded by super PACs. People are simply sick of politics as usual and instead of seeing this and attacking one party or another maybe we could finally see that these party politics as usual are being rejected by both sides of the aisle. Maybe we don't need two horribly corrupt organizations telling is who to vote for anymore. George Washington warned against political parties a long time ago, and its easy to see why now if you really pay attention. We should a candidate based on how we feel about their specific policies as a whole and not whether there is a D or an R at the front of their name. We may very well have one of these candidates for president, Sanders or Trump, and the problem both of them will face is a congress and Senate controlled by party line, career politicians and face not bipartisan support, but bipartisan political terrorism from party leaders. This is a good chance to think whether the leadership is either of these parties are the people we want running the country. The second civil war is political in nature and hatred for the people across the aisle is a sick way to heal the country. These aren't sports teams, the only people winning are the Establishment, and the only losers are the American people on both sides of the aisle. This election shows that more than any superficial revelation about party directions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Republicans have the Tea Party and the Democrats have the social democrats, and most of us are somewhere in between the two.

The question to me is whether the conservatives will either figure out or admit that the goal is Sweden & Germany, not Cuba & Venezuela.

The conservatives are fighting something that doesn't exist right now, and it's helping the social democrats big time.

.

The Democrats promise Sweden and deliver Venezuela.

That would actually be the argument to make. But the problem with just screaming "socialism" is that it makes it easy for the social democrats to point out existing "socialist" stuff like cops, roads, social security, Medicare, etc., and suddenly the conservatives have to either (1) defend the absurd or (2) call for the end of social security and Medicare, which is just a freakin' brilliant idea.

Just sayin' - while conservatives are screaming "socialism", the liberals are easily poking holes in that argument and then making gains with their own arguments. They need a more nuanced approach.

.

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

 

[Mac1958]

The Republicans have the Tea Party and the Democrats have the social democrats, and most of us are somewhere in between the two.

The question to me is whether the conservatives will either figure out or admit that the goal is Sweden & Germany, not Cuba & Venezuela.

The conservatives are fighting something that doesn't exist right now, and it's helping the social democrats big time.

.

The Democrats promise Sweden and deliver Venezuela.

That would actually be the argument to make. But the problem with just screaming "socialism" is that it makes it easy for the social democrats to point out existing "socialist" stuff like cops, roads, social security, Medicare, etc., and suddenly the conservatives have to either (1) defend the absurd or (2) call for the end of social security and Medicare, which is just a freakin' brilliant idea.

Just sayin' - while conservatives are screaming "socialism", the liberals are easily poking holes in that argument and then making gains with their own arguments. They need a more nuanced approach.

.

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

 

[kaz]

The Democrats promise Sweden and deliver Venezuela.

That would actually be the argument to make. But the problem with just screaming "socialism" is that it makes it easy for the social democrats to point out existing "socialist" stuff like cops, roads, social security, Medicare, etc., and suddenly the conservatives have to either (1) defend the absurd or (2) call for the end of social security and Medicare, which is just a freakin' brilliant idea.

Just sayin' - while conservatives are screaming "socialism", the liberals are easily poking holes in that argument and then making gains with their own arguments. They need a more nuanced approach.

.

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

 

[Mac1958]

That would actually be the argument to make. But the problem with just screaming "socialism" is that it makes it easy for the social democrats to point out existing "socialist" stuff like cops, roads, social security, Medicare, etc., and suddenly the conservatives have to either (1) defend the absurd or (2) call for the end of social security and Medicare, which is just a freakin' brilliant idea.

Just sayin' - while conservatives are screaming "socialism", the liberals are easily poking holes in that argument and then making gains with their own arguments. They need a more nuanced approach.

.

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Cops and roads are Socialist ideals, in that putting money into one pot for the benefit of all.

*sigh* The Internet can be used for more than just porn, y'know. Try using it to look up the word "socialism", and you will - hopefully - understand that it does not refer to any existence and function of government whatsoever. You idiots act like anything that isn't outright anarchy is automatically "socialism".

If you're feeling especially receptive to knowledge, you might also look up some writings on the subject of "appropriate functions of government". And understand, also, that just because something is a proper function of one level of government, that does not automatically make it a proper function of EVERY level of government.

Come back when you stop talking out of your ass.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

Throw Granny Off A Cliff! Yeah thats it. ITs either continue with an insane system that is bankrupting this country or throw granny off a cliff. There is no other alternative.
People actually believe this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Credit unions and co-ops are actually part of the private market, so they aren't socialist. Socialism involves the use of government compulsion. without it, you don't have socialism.

WTF are you spouting. Unions, co-ops, HMO's are all socialist ideals.

Nope. They are purely voluntary. Socialism is based on force.

Who is being 'forced?'

Everyone under the jurisdiction of the socialist government is being forced.

Oh god, the evil, horrid things being done in finland.

Well, if you think it's so spiffy, why don't you move to Finland, where they already have everything just like you want it? Why do you have to change this country to be like Finland and force those of us who don't like that plan to live in it against our will?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope. They are purely voluntary. Socialism is based on force.

Oh, so much horrid forcing going on in europe. /s

Yes, it's all forced. You believe that if they aren't waving the guns right in your face they aren't forcing you? The Mafia doesn't wave guns in your face either when it comes around to collect its protection money

LOL. I suppose you're one of the people who believes europe is a hell hole.

What does that have to do with the fact that socialism is based on force?

You seem to believe universal healthcare is comparable to the USSR's forced collectivization. Both socialism/capitalism are based on "force" if gone to far.

Given how many people don't like the idea of "universal healthcare", I'd say there's a definite element of force involved. Can't imagine how you think capitalism is based on force, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think Bernie Sanders admitted for the Democrats that they are socialists. Big surprise after they spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. Oops!

Idiot, anything to do with government is socialist. Not everything that is socialist is bad...

You're just anti-civilization and wish for the entire effin world to be ran by unregulated corporations! I think I'll stick with regulating these assholes by my elected government.

No, fucktard. Look up "socialism". You act like "government" and "socialism" are direct synonyms, and they aren't. Socialism specifically refers to government ownership of the means of production. It does not refer to government doing things that are appropriate government jobs, eg. maintaining a military or negotiating treaties or enforcing laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope. They are purely voluntary. Socialism is based on force.

Are you forced to pay your taxes?

Of course you are. You aren't seriously going to contend otherwise, are you?

What kind of a country can you envision where all taxes were voluntary?

The term "voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron.

What I support is called "the private law society." You can read about it here:

Mises Daily Mises Institute

People use our roads, police and enjoy the regulations that make our air clean, water clean and make sure we have food standards. Why the fuck shouldn't people pay taxes??? It is thief for them not too.

Whoever said people shouldn't pay taxes for essential public services? That, however, doesn't negate the fact that paying taxes is NOT voluntary, and the collection of same is done only through threat of force.

 

[kaz]

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

Do you want to buy everyone a car or do you want to just let us fend for ourselves?