Hillary Can’t Tell The Difference Between Democrats And Socialists

a reply to: IAMTAT

I think the problem lies a bit deeper. The term socialism was used in so many different ways and shapes that it lost its meaning. There is state socialism, democratic socialism, leninist socialism, national-socialism.

An interesting definition:

Democrats, he said, are a centrist coalition that includes some groups that are left of center. Traditional socialism, other hand, is a political-economic system that organizes the economy purely around the needs of the people.

Source Bloomberg

originally posted by: xuenchen
It gets worse for Democrats and Hillary.

An interesting interview from a few months ago.....

Alan Colmes (Fox News contributor) Talks to John Bachtell (National Chair of Communist Party USA)

Colmes: “Well, you’ve talked about working in the two party system. So you support Democrats for the most part? Are you supporting Bernie Sanders let’s say in this election?”

Bachtell: “Ah well, Yea we’re apart of what I kind of call the Progressive, pro-labor wing of the Democratic Party. I mean it’s no secret and we’re apart of a very broad movement of organizations: labor movements, civil rights movements, other movements, women’s movement, what not, that find their home in the Democratic Party.

here's an opening comment from the Youtube poster:

Published on Aug 22, 2015

Alan Colmes Talks to John Bachtell: Alan talks to National Chair of Communist Party USA John Bachtell about American politics: In 1919, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was created in Chicago as a 5th Column by the U.S.S.R. in order to form “fighting organizations for seizing control of the state, for the overthrow of government and the establishment of the workers’ dictatorship.” With the eventual collapse of Communist Russia the CPUSA needed to form new alliances with groups also hell bent on destroying the United States from within. Luckily for them, they found the Democratic Party.

During an interview with Fox News contributor Alan Colmes,CPUSA National Chariman John Bachtell stated that not only does he believe that Socialism and Communism are basically interchangeable (Communism being more of the utopian form of Socialism), but that he believes the CPUSA is the Progressive, Pro-Labor Wing of the Democratic Party:

The videos are in 2 parts:

Communist Party USA Chairman: We Are The Progressive, Pro-Labor Wing Of The Democrat Party - Part 1


Communist Party USA Chairman: We Are The Progressive, Pro-Labor Wing Of The Democrat Party - Part 2


here's Part 1.....

The party has increasingly moved left. Anyone know what happened to the "blue dog democrats"? The democrat party is now the home of every grievance group in the country. This is why the policy positions are so disjointed and contradictory like increasing the minimum wage but then calling for more low skilled immigration. Supporting teacher unions while preventing school choice so blacks can take their kids out of failing inner city schools.

Of course she is not going to give a clear answer as to why Democrats are different than socialists. She is trying to get their support as well. So why would she want to alienate them by drawing clear contrasts between the two?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DJW001

Maybe he wanted an actual answer from Clinton. Crazy, I know.

MaybeChris Matthews is not as enamored of Hillary as you have been told to believe.

originally posted by: introvert
Of course she is not going to give a clear answer as to why Democrats are different than socialists. She is trying to get their support as well. So why would she want to alienate them by drawing clear contrasts between the two?

Then why risk alienating them by categorically denying she's a Socialist...as she did in the interview? Why not do as Sanders did and claim to be a 'Democratic Socialist'?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DJW001

Maybe he wanted an actual answer from Clinton. Crazy, I know.

MaybeChris Matthews is not as enamored of Hillary as you have been told to believe.

What? No "thrill up his leg" from Hillary? Impossible.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IAMTAT

I blame the right's insistence on using "Socialist" as a derogatory slur as to why Hillary didn't want to define herself as one. We all know that Hillary always tries to take the politically safest stance on things. So it's only natural for her to distance herself from a politically charged word like Socialist.

So really, she just dances around the truth to protect the "brand" that is the Democrat party.

That's o.k., but...........when I was a "working" person, paying fat taxes to support the Democrat party social programs, it did offend me that there couldn't be some truth in advertising about their "party" name.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IAMTAT

Hey, I agree. It makes her sound shady when she dances around the question like that. I'm not afraid of the word Socialist, so I have no problems speaking about it.

Do you think many Socialists in the U.S. would be angry with Clinton because she is so adamant about not being one?

Interesting question. She clearly seems to think that wouldn't be the case. Though I'm pretty sure most Socialists are planning on voting for Bernie since he isn't shying away from the word. Maybe she's already written them off as just inevitable votes for her when Bernie ends up not getting nominated.

a reply to: TonyS

Well it's kind of a catch 22 here. The word "Socialist" is so negatively charged because of conservative partisan slurs that Democrats don't like using it even though by all accounts most Democratic policies are Socialist in nature. Hell there used to be a time in our past when both the Republican and Democratic parties accepted Socialism and weren't afraid to admit to being them. I'd like to see the Democrats get over their fear too, but I'm not a registered Democrat so let them do what they want to do.

Well, to be fair to the poor old lady, I can't tell the difference, either.

Here's another line.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TonyS

Well it's kind of a catch 22 here. The word "Socialist" is so negatively charged because of conservative partisan slurs that Democrats don't like using it even though by all accounts most Democratic policies are Socialist in nature. Hell there used to be a time in our past when both the Republican and Democratic parties accepted Socialism and weren't afraid to admit to being them. I'd like to see the Democrats get over their fear too, but I'm not a registered Democrat so let them do what they want to do.

I don't think partisan slurs are the issue. I think many people clearly see the negative impacts of socialism for themselves.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TonyS

Well it's kind of a catch 22 here. The word "Socialist" is so negatively charged because of conservative partisan slurs that Democrats don't like using it even though by all accounts most Democratic policies are Socialist in nature. Hell there used to be a time in our past when both the Republican and Democratic parties accepted Socialism and weren't afraid to admit to being them. I'd like to see the Democrats get over their fear too, but I'm not a registered Democrat so let them do what they want to do.

I don't think partisan slurs are the issue. I think many people clearly see the negative impacts of socialism for themselves.

Coming from a conservative poster, you are just proving my point here.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert
Of course she is not going to give a clear answer as to why Democrats are different than socialists. She is trying to get their support as well. So why would she want to alienate them by drawing clear contrasts between the two?

Then why risk alienating them by categorically denying she's a Socialist...as she did in the interview? Why not do as Sanders did and claim to be a 'Democratic Socialist'?

Because she want's to draw a contrast between herself and Sanders, but at the same time not alienate them completely so that they will not support her. It's politics. No one said it had to make much sense.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't know. Maybe because she was in political spin mode and didn't have a real answer to that question.

So she's either stupid or won't go there?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: IAMTAT

What's the difference between democrat an socialist in your definition
And if they are the same: Why would you still use the term 'socialist'?


On another note Hillary is a republican who just met this cool guy who was a dem and therefore changed the party.

Oh and the difference between Hillary and Bernie: She is in for the corporations, he might be in for the people.

Just my 2 cents

Why use the term socialist? Because that is what the party is now. Liberals are masters of using language to camouflage themselves, policies, etc. You are not socialist, but "progressive democrats". Social Justice warriors. Diversity. Climate change. Inequality. Libs love to use these vague terms.

You forgot equality and fairness.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DJW001

Baited? Really? MSNBC? Chris Matthews?...He loves her.

Oh? Then why did he ask that question? Do you really think he wanted a history lesson?

What was he supposed to ask her? What color her toenail polish was?

Maybe he thought it was something of a softball, and like others here he is aware of the stigma of the word and that it is often used against Democrats these days in a negative light, so he was giving her the chance to show the world that she is not a socialist.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't know. Maybe because she was in political spin mode and didn't have a real answer to that question.

So she's either stupid or won't go there?

...or both.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well stupid is one of the last adjectives I'd ever use to describe Hillary. She is definitely NOT stupid and knows exactly what she is doing. So let's go with option 2 there.

What is the right answer?

Both the Ds and Rs run on a platform is has facets of socialism in their respective platforms.

I find it laughable that anyone thinks otherwise, they also believe Supply Side Economics works too.

Derek

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Well stupid is one of the last adjectives I'd ever use to describe Hillary. She is definitely NOT stupid and knows exactly what she is doing. So let's go with option 2 there.

I agree. It's funny that some of the very people that call Hillary stupid wouldn't stand a chance in a debate against her. Calling her stupid is not only inaccurate, but lazy.