Hillary Can’t Tell The Difference Between Democrats And Socialists

a reply to: IAMTAT

I cannot comment on Sander's personal use or definition of terms.

Here's the problem: the word "socialist" has been used to describe economic and political systems of wildly varying characteristics for nearly 200 years now. They range from Fabianism, through Marxism, back to Progressivism, down, down, to the grievously deceptively named "National Socialism" of the Nazis, and back up to the liberal democracies of Europe and Canada today. The word has been demonized, often by people who have no problem with the State providing welfare to the military-industrial complex. Since Bernie Sanders calls himself a "socialist," a term which in his mind probably conjures up images of Israeli kibbutzim making collective decisions through direct, "town hall" style meetings, it poses problems for the DNC. At this point, a Clinton-Sanders ticket looks highly probable. Why spoil it by trying to pin half the ticket down to a specific, demonized, philosophy?

a reply to: DJW001

I'd agree with much of that, but half of a Clinton/Sanders ticket would already be pinned down to Socialism, via Sanders' own political declaration. Clinton, for her part vehemently and personally eschews the socialist label for herself...so why would she choose a proud Socialist as a potential running mate?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DJW001

I'd agree with much of that, but half of a Clinton/Sanders ticket would already be pinned down to Socialism, via Sanders' own political declaration. Clinton, for her part vehemently and personally eschews the socialist label for herself...so why would she choose a proud Socialist as a potential running mate?

Because he has support among the party's base. Avoiding being too specific about the meaning of the word "socialism" keeps the independents from being swayed by the negative propaganda.

a reply to: DJW001

It just seems that if Democrats really LOVE Socialism...and believe in it...they would extol it's virtues to the sky! Why not hold up, as shinning examples, all of those amazingly successful and vibrant European socialist countries with robust economies; especially if they feel it's been unfairly demonized by those devilish Republicans.

Last September Hillary Clinton declared herself to be a 'Moderate Democrat':

Clinton 'pleads guilty' to being a moderate

"You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center," Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. "I plead guilty."

www.cnn.com...


Now she is calling herself a 'Progressive Democrat':

" I’m a Progressive Democrat..."

hotair.com...


So are Progressives really Moderates?...or is Hillary just talking out of her butt about what she is?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Yes, the majority of the Democrat party and "progressives/liberals" are moderates.

a reply to: introvert

I'm not arguing that your personal definition is incorrect...but it is strongly divergent from Sanders' understanding. Under your definition, Sanders, as a self-proclaimed "Progressive" and vociferously-stated, 'non-liberal'...would still be a 'Moderate'.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I do not know how he defines "progressive" and the definitions I have provided is my own personal opinion. I would not call him a progressive, but he can call himself whatever he likes.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

I do not know how he defines "progressive" and the definitions I have provided is my own personal opinion. I would not call him a progressive, but he can call himself whatever he likes.

That being the case, you would be comfortable voting for Sanders?

EDIT: Sorry, you don't have to answer that. Even though we're still discussing political party terminology and it's inherent ambiguity, I don't want to veer off topic.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DJW001

It just seems that if Democrats really LOVE Socialism...and believe in it...they would extol it's virtues to the sky! Why not hold up, as shinning examples, all of those amazingly successful and vibrant European socialist countries with robust economies; especially if they feel it's been unfairly demonized by those devilish Republicans.

And if Republicans LOVE ultra-nationislim, xenophobia, etc., ie; Nazism, you would would think they would extol that to the heavens.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DJW001

It just seems that if Democrats really LOVE Socialism...and believe in it...they would extol it's virtues to the sky! Why not hold up, as shinning examples, all of those amazingly successful and vibrant European socialist countries with robust economies; especially if they feel it's been unfairly demonized by those devilish Republicans.

And if Republicans LOVE ultra-nationislim, xenophobia, etc., ie; Nazism, you would would think they would extol that to the heavens.

You believe Republicans love Nazism? Please tell me you're being facetious.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

I do not know how he defines "progressive" and the definitions I have provided is my own personal opinion. I would not call him a progressive, but he can call himself whatever he likes.

That being the case, you would be comfortable voting for Sanders?

EDIT: Sorry, you don't have to answer that. Even though we're still discussing political party terminology and it's inherent ambiguity, I don't want to veer off topic.

Even though I am a socialist and like many of Sander's ideas, I cannot vote for Sanders in the primary as I am not a registered Democrat. In fact, I'm still a registered Republican. I changed my affiliation to vote for Ron Paul (it's complicated).

The information I have seen indicates that Sanders does not have a chance, Clinton will win the nomination and unless an act of god occurs in the near future, Clinton will win the White House.

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.

You just summed up her whole career.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Notice how you use conservative as a slur?

Also how's socialism in Venezuela going?

a reply to: IAMTAT

You believe Republicans love Nazism? Please tell me you're being facetious

Not all Republicans of course, just the ones who are destroying the party. Let's run a quick checklist:

Nazism:
1. Patriotism is the highest virtue.
2. German exceptionalism.
3. Might makes right.
4. Foreigners and Liberals are the cause of Germany's problems.
5. We must act decisively to make our Germany great again.
6. We must deport all the foreigners.
7. We need a strong, charismatic leader who is not afraid to speak his mind and take decisive action.

Trump voters:
1. Patriotism is the highest virtue.
2. American exceptionalism.
3. Might makes right.
4. Foreigners and Liberals are the Cause of America's problems.
5. We must act decisively to make America great again.
6. We must deport all the foreigners.
7. We need a strong, charismatic leader who is not afraid to speak his mind and take decisive action.

Even Putin, the charismatic Fascist leader of Russia, is not as xenophobic as Trump pretends to be.

a reply to: TheBulk

Also how's socialism in Venezuela going?

It's a disaster, just like any other economy in a country run by rulers-for-life. Canada, on the other hand, is doing better than the United States.

a reply to: DJW001

So showing patriotism and having pride is your country is akin to Nazism. Brilliant analysis.

But, we're not burning Jews this time, right?

a reply to: IAMTAT

So showing patriotism and having pride is your country is akin to Nazism. Brilliant analysis.

It is when it trumps* compassion and reason.

But, we're not burning Jews this time, right?

Not yet, but let's see what Trump supporters start to say about Bernie.

* No pun intended.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IAMTAT

So showing patriotism and having pride is your country is akin to Nazism. Brilliant analysis.

It is when it trumps* compassion and reason.

But, we're not burning Jews this time, right?

Not yet, but let's see what Trump supporters start to say about Bernie.

* No pun intended.

LOL...good one.