It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Can’t Tell The Difference Between Democrats And Socialists

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

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.


It does beg the question though ... Matthews asked Wasserperson-Schultz that exact same question which she also declined to answer, so you would think that Hillary's handlers would have come up with an answer of sorts for her to give just in case.




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



It does beg the question though


Where's the question?



Matthews asked Wasserperson-Schultz


Who's "Wasserperson-Schultz"?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Ask Bernie Sanders..... He doesn't know the difference either.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Remember that how we define socialism is two ways. Either the prelude to communism and KGB and Hitler or helping people that can't help themselves.

That's really all modern socialism is--helping people that can't help themselves. Is there something wrong with that? Republicans rail against it, but they never stop funding welfare or medicaid or medicare or social security or free healthcare if you walk into an emergency room or free healthcare if you have a heart attack on the street even if you're homeless.

We've also defined that we want every citizen of the united states to have free education until 12th grade. I never see republicans try to repeal that. That's socialism as well. Oh we also want all citizens to have a lawyer even if they have no money when they are charged with a crime.
edit on 6-1-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Why she couldn't or wouldn't answer.



Here's the original exchange that prompted the question in all likelihood.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I know about the original exchange and whom was asked. It was wise not to directly answer the question as she stood to piss-off a portion of her own base by creating a separation between the socialists and the party.

And I see what you did with her name. Wasserman-"Wasserperson".

Witty for the injection of the PC meme, yet childish.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
-Hillary Clinton



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

*yawn*

I could have called her Blabbermouth-Schultz which is the going version if I wanted to really be childish.

So, basically, she doesn't answer at all which just says there is no practical difference. After all, when Obama said that he would always view marriage as being between a man and a woman, it didn't piss off the gay lobby, so it can't be that her giving an answer would piss off the socialists who have always been in the pocket of Democrats. They would do what the gays did, assume she is lying like Obama did.

And if there is a real worry they wouldn't, then that's what her handlers make their money doing - crafting answers she can give to questions like this one. After all, there are far more people in this country who are worried that there really IS no difference between democrat and socialist than that there might be a difference. If she's playing vote calculus, then surely that is a consideration too.


edit on 6-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Sanders says he's not a liberal...but a progressive.



“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”

www.nytimes.com...

Hillary calls herself a "Progressive Democrat".
Sanders is a "Progressive Democratic Socialist".

Hopefully, this clears things up.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I'd be more specific. Modern socialism isn't just helping people. It is taking from someone else to help others. This is the difference. See progressives love to dig in my pocket to help someone else.

As a conservative, I don't mind helping others. I do it all the time. I just don't like having my hard earned money stolen by the government and given to someone else.

I think the issue is that both conservatives and progressives want to help people. we just have different approaches. Conservatives rather charity begin at home and locally. Progressives want the government to do everything.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing


That's really all modern socialism is--helping people that can't help themselves. Is there something wrong with that? Republicans rail against it, but they never stop funding welfare or medicaid or medicare or social security or free healthcare if you walk into an emergency room or free healthcare if you have a heart attack on the street even if you're homeless.


You forgot the part about how you fund all that by taking from me by force which is usually defined as theft when a private citizen attempts it no matter how noble their intent, but when you all vote your hands into my pockets, it then becomes "sharing."

And, of course, nevermind that this funds programs that I will almost certainly never get any benefit from, so I am basically paying into a pot for things I see no benefit from which is counter to the tenets of socialism which is pooled resources for the common good where I am part of that "common."



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



I could have called her Blabbermouth-Schultz which is the going version if I wanted to really be childish.


How's what you said any different?



So, basically, she doesn't answer at all which just says there is no practical difference


No. It means she doesn't know or refuses to answer.



After all, when Obama said that he would always view marriage as being between a man and a woman, it didn't piss off the gay lobby, so it can't be that her giving an answer would piss off the socialists who have always been in the pocket of Democrats.


That's illogical. At the same time Obama said that his personal view that marriage was between a man and a woman, he also said that he favored equal application of the law.

Personal views and the law are two separate things and the gay lobby knew it.



They would do what the gays did


Why? They are two different groups of people and the socialists are not fighting for equal application. Socialism is a political belief and is not being denied their rights.



And if there is a real worry they wouldn't, then that's what her handlers make their money doing - crafting answers she can give to questions like this one.


Perhaps her "handlers" told her it was best to answer such a question in the manner I described. It's not very smart to tell a group of people within their own party that they are "different" than the rest.



After all, there are far more people in this country who are worried that there really IS no difference between democrat and socialist than that there might be a difference.


Because they are misinformed and uneducated on the matter. Not much we can do about that.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So you give up on votes? Winning strategy there or I guess Hillary figures the selling point for socialism is when she sells it as "free" stuff.

The idea that socialists don't think they're being denied their rights is laughable. Just visit any thread about the medical system and you'll see them whining over a lack of single payer for example because health care is a right. That's an expression of what they see as a denial of right.

Many also wax poetic about how we should have basic incomes, increased minimum wage, etc., workers being again denied their rights to a "fair" wage which comes from the socialist world view that businesses exist to provide jobs more than to make money.

And if she doesn't know, then she's stupid or there is no difference.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

To all self-proclaimed socialists (Introvert, I can't remember if that includes you):

How would YOU consider your political worldview different from that of a Democrat?...or do you feel there IS no difference?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



So you give up on votes?


What did I say that would give you that idea? What I said actually means they are trying to keep votes.



The idea that socialists don't think they're being denied their rights is laughable. Just visit any thread about the medical system and you'll see them whining over a lack of single payer for example because health care is a right. That's an expression of what they see as a denial of right.


Healthcare is not a right, but socialists believe it should be. Socialists, such as myself, realize that is going to be a long, rough process to go through. Not as urgent as equal application for homosexuals and marriage. So we are not too up-in-arms over healthcare at the moment.

Not a very good example.



Many also wax poetic about how we should have basic incomes, increased minimum wage, etc., workers being again denied their rights to a "fair" wage


That is not a socialist ideal. That is a human rights issue that many different people from varying ideologies agree with.



which comes from the socialist world view that businesses exist to provide jobs more than to make money.


That's absurd. The only reason for a business to exist is to profit. Any other purpose is illogical. Socialists and other groups believe it is not moral or right for profit to be made by laborers that cannot feed their families. We are not slaves in this country.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

To all self-proclaimed socialists (Introvert, I can't remember if that includes you):

How would YOU consider your political worldview different from that of a Democrat?...or do you feel there IS no difference?


Democrats are corporate ass-kissing pansies that are nothing more than Diet Republicans. They claim to work for the little man, but they represent their own interests by aligning with money brokers and the military-industrial complex.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

To all self-proclaimed socialists (Introvert, I can't remember if that includes you):

How would YOU consider your political worldview different from that of a Democrat?...or do you feel there IS no difference?


Democrats are corporate ass-kissing pansies that are nothing more than Diet Republicans. They claim to work for the little man, but they represent their own interests by aligning with money brokers and the military-industrial complex.


Okay. That actually helps. Thank you.
What about Liberal vs. Progressive?
Is Progressive the new Liberal?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

To all self-proclaimed socialists (Introvert, I can't remember if that includes you):

How would YOU consider your political worldview different from that of a Democrat?...or do you feel there IS no difference?


Democrats are corporate ass-kissing pansies that are nothing more than Diet Republicans. They claim to work for the little man, but they represent their own interests by aligning with money brokers and the military-industrial complex.


Okay. That actually helps. Thank you.
What about Liberal vs. Progressive?
Is Progressive the new Liberal?


In a manner of speaking, yes. The Right Wing propaganda machine was very effective at making the term liberal a derogatory term in and of itself.

The Left just found a new term to use to distance themselves from the lies and hatred directed at liberals. Now "progressive" is the target of their propaganda. Eventually, they will have to find a new term.

The Right-Wing machine has begun to turn on the Republicans as well. Since the Republicans have not gone to the extremes the hardcore Right wishes the party to go, we have seen more people call themselves "Libertarians" instead of Republicans.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Okay, thanks again; that brings up Sanders' statement: “I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”

Democrats, themselves consistently differentiate themselves between liberal and conservatives within their own party.
So I doubt the term falling into disfavor is due primarily to Republicans demonizing the term.
edit on 6-1-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Everyone, from communists to conservatives, have redefined terms so much about the only applicable term that would honestly apply to politicians is "slime".



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join