Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zaro

Can the dem party be an opposition party?

Recommended Posts

 

So you are saying Sanders is lying when he called himself a Socialist, just as he lied when he called himself a Democrat?

 

The attacks on the Democratic party were initiated on the left, and they have continued unabated on this forum. I've asked for this crap to stop for a long time.

 

Liberals will only stand for so much before we push back against leftism and defeat.

 

Bill

He calls himself a DEMOCRATIC socialist. He didn't lie about being a Democrat (Hillary's the known liar, not Bernie's).

 

The Democrats are part of the left. We are all left of center here. I'm a liberal, you're a liberal, so are many others who post in this sub-forum. Nobody's "attacking" the Democratic Party. It's valid criticism I'm spouting (and will continue to do so). I want to see the Democratic Party drop their plutocratic ways, kick Wall Street lobbyists and wealthy donors to the curb and start working for average America. I will continue to fight for that until my last breath. As I stated earlier, I have pledged 10% of my income over the next two years to put towards transforming the Democratic party into a party that is "by the people, for the people." Deny it all you want, change in the Democratic Party is desperately needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wrong. Democrats are the Progressives.

 

Fake Democrats who tear down the party, aid Trumpists, engage in demagoguery and angry populism are not "progressives."

 

They are Regressives who are pursuing a failed collectivist ideology.

 

Liberals will resist the totalitarian road with all we've got.

 

Bill

Dems are only progressive if compared to the GOP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not archaic usage. But well-established terms in political science that have set meanings.

 

If anything is archaic, it is the 30s style neo-Stalinist rhetoric of the Left attacking liberals as "plutocrats."

 

This is the same attack line the Left mounted on the good liberal Democratic president FDR 70 years ago.

 

It sounds as ridiculous now as it did then.

 

Bill

 

Looking at the sum of the things you say; The past and the present are the same. It is all set in stone. In your world, nothing ever changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He calls himself a DEMOCRATIC socialist. He didn't lie about being a Democrat (Hillary's the known liar, not Bernie's).

 

The Democrats are part of the left. We are all left of center here. I'm a liberal, you're a liberal, so are many others who post in this sub-forum. Nobody's "attacking" the Democratic Party. It's valid criticism I'm spouting (and will continue to do so). I want to see the Democratic Party drop their plutocratic ways, kick Wall Street lobbyists and wealthy donors to the curb and start working for average America. I will continue to fight for that until my last breath. As I stated earlier, I have pledged 10% of my income over the next two years to put towards transforming the Democratic party into a party that is "by the people, for the people." Deny it all you want, change in the Democratic Party is desperately needed.

 

Bernie proved no affinity towards democracy when he backed the totalitarian Sandinistas in Nicaragua or the totalitarian Castro brothers in Cuba.

 

I'm skeptical of his credentials as a democrat or a Democrat. He's record shows support for tyrannical communism. That's the truth you won't face.

 

The Democrats are already the people's party. We are just not the (fake) Soviet People's Democratic Party some unreconstructed leftists dream of imposing on America against our will.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you are saying Sanders is lying when he called himself a Socialist, just as he lied when he called himself a Democrat?

 

The attacks on the Democratic party were initiated on the left, and they have continued unabated on this forum. I've asked for this crap to stop for a long time.

 

Liberals will only stand for so much before we push back against leftism and defeat.

 

Bill

 

You have clearly not educated yourself on her positions. She has been rabidly anti-Muslim, is opposed by the LBGTQ community in Hawaii for here antipathy to that community, and a supporter of Hindu fascism. And runs right on many foreign policy issues.

 

Do your homework. This is no liberal.

 

Bill

When your logic fails, you resort to DonJoe-like tactics RR?

 

Shame on you dude.

 

Bill

 

No I do not think Sanders lied when he says he's socialist. But it's clear that he did not advocate socialist policies in the 2016 primary. And while many members on this forum identify with the left and socialism most of them have advocated a lot of liberal things. Whatever my disagreements with them may be as a liberal there have been more things I agree with them on. This is not some kind of illiberal New Left Nihilist Haven you make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looking at the sum of the things you say; The past and the present are the same. It is all set in stone. In your world, nothing ever changes.

 

And you are stuck in 1930s Socialist propaganda.

 

What you are saying about me is false. The world changes and responses and party positions evolve with the times. That doesn't mean abandoning liberal values for demagoguery, angry populism, or collectivism. Those are bad paths.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bernie proved no affinity towards democracy when he backed the totalitarian Sandinistas in Nicaragua or the totalitarian Castro brothers in Cuba.

 

I'm skeptical of his credentials as a democrat or a Democrat. He's record shows support for tyrannical communism. That's the truth you won't face.

 

The Democrats are already the people's party. We are just not the (fake) Soviet People's Democratic Party some unreconstructed leftists dream of imposing on America against our will.

 

Bill

 

:lol: Spin, spin, spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No I do not think Sanders lied when he says he's socialist. But it's clear that he did not advocate socialist policies in the 2016 primary. And while many members on this forum identify with the left and socialism most of them have advocated a lot of liberal things. Whatever my disagreements with them may be as a liberal there have been more things I agree with them on. This is not some kind of illiberal New Left Nihilist Haven you make it out to be.

 

So if he's a socialist, but didn't advocate socialist positions wouldn't that mean he made a craven choice to hide his real agenda to help gain political power?

 

I think the leftists on this forum have spent more (almost all) their time attacking HRC as a candidate instead of looking for issues where liberals and leftist could find common cause. That is pretty consistent with the political history of the left in this country, where leftist groups have alway engaged in internecine warfare with other leftists to splinter their "movement" over the slightest ideological division.

 

It is a losing stratey. Now and then. It make the left unreliable allies.

 

Trump is on the eve of his inaguration—takings in no small part to leftists tactics—and her they still are re-fighting a primary that they lost. Talk about stupidity.

 

But the Left never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:lol: Spin, spin, spin.

 

Which is a dodge response that evades Bernie Sanders well-documented support for totalitarian communist dictatorships.

 

You're the one whose trying to spin the guy as a "democrat," when his record says otherwise.

 

Bill

SpyCar, everyone posting on this sub-forum is part of the left. You included.

 

No. I'm a liberal, not a leftist.

 

I don't go for totalitarianism when it suits me. It never suits me.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which is a dodge response that evades Bernie Sanders well-documented support for totalitarian communist dictatorships.

 

You're the one whose trying to spin the guy as a "democrat," when his record says otherwise.

 

Bill

No spin needed. Bernie was a Democrat for a short time.

 

He doesn't support totalitarian communist dictatorships; that's an untrue and delusional statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No spin needed. Bernie was a Democrat for a short time.

 

He doesn't support totalitarian communist dictatorships; that's an untrue and delusional statement.

 

The Sandinistas and the Castros weren't totalitarian communists? Because he sure supported them.

 

As to being a Democrat for a "short time," yeah—it was a short time. Only as long as he was running as a false flag candidate.

 

He promised to remain a Democrat. But he lied. Which makes him a liar of the worst sort.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nah. The politics of collectivism are on the ash-leap of history.

 

His is socialist revolution definitely not the vision the liberal Democratic party has in mind.

 

Bill

 

Democrats Are Not Socialists, and Neither Is Bernie Sanders

 

By Samuel Goldman • August 10, 2015

 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was recently mocked for flubbing a question on Chris Matthews. Asked the difference between Democrats and socialists, Wasserman Schultz tries to talk about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The exchange doesn’t reflect well on Wasserman Schultz, who plows through her talking points as if the question had never been asked. But it has a pretty easy answer. Historically, the essential feature of socialism is the demand for public ownership or direct government control of major sectors of the economy. A bit more abstractly, socialists have aimed to eliminate considerations of profit from as many areas of life as possible. They used to the describe this goal as “revolution”, which didn’t necessarily mean violence.

The modern Democratic Party isn’t about revolution. Since FDR, Democrats have consistently supported regulated competition and redistributive policies that direct private profits toward the relative losers in market exchange. These strategies are better understood as “welfarism” than socialism. A concrete example? Compare Britain’s NHS before Thatcher’s reforms to Medicare…or Obamacare, for that matter.

There’s something of a spectrum between these positions. Even so, you don’t meet many socialists in mainstream politics these days. Most “Socialist” parties in Europe abandoned their revolutionary dreams a long time ago. And the self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders offers a welfarist agenda that’s barely updated from the ’50s.

So no, Democrats aren’t socialists. We might be able to have a less stupid discussion of their actual positions if welfarists, and their critics, knew the difference.

Samuel Goldman is assistant professor of political science at The George Washington University.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Sandinistas and the Castros weren't totalitarian communists? Because he sure supported them.

 

As to being a Democrat for a "short time," yeah—it was a short time. Only as long as he was running as a false flag candidate.

 

He promised to remain a Democrat. But he lied. Which makes him a liar of the worst sort.

 

Bill

 

:lol: Spin, spin, spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Horse shit.

 

Bill

 

Is that like a selfie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Spin, spin, spin.

 

Truth, truth, truth.

 

Sanders has a long record of supporting totalitarians. Not just supporting, but cheering them on.

 

He lied about being a Democrat. Why should we believe him if he claims (in the face of a contradictory history) to be a democrat?

 

Bill

Democrats Are Not Socialists, and Neither Is Bernie Sanders

 

By Samuel Goldman • August 10, 2015

 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was recently mocked for flubbing a question on Chris Matthews. Asked the difference between Democrats and socialists, Wasserman Schultz tries to talk about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The exchange doesn’t reflect well on Wasserman Schultz, who plows through her talking points as if the question had never been asked. But it has a pretty easy answer. Historically, the essential feature of socialism is the demand for public ownership or direct government control of major sectors of the economy. A bit more abstractly, socialists have aimed to eliminate considerations of profit from as many areas of life as possible. They used to the describe this goal as “revolution”, which didn’t necessarily mean violence.

The modern Democratic Party isn’t about revolution. Since FDR, Democrats have consistently supported regulated competition and redistributive policies that direct private profits toward the relative losers in market exchange. These strategies are better understood as “welfarism” than socialism. A concrete example? Compare Britain’s NHS before Thatcher’s reforms to Medicare…or Obamacare, for that matter.

There’s something of a spectrum between these positions. Even so, you don’t meet many socialists in mainstream politics these days. Most “Socialist” parties in Europe abandoned their revolutionary dreams a long time ago. And the self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders offers a welfarist agenda that’s barely updated from the ’50s.

So no, Democrats aren’t socialists. We might be able to have a less stupid discussion of their actual positions if welfarists, and their critics, knew the difference.

Samuel Goldman is assistant professor of political science at The George Washington University.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/

Kind of a dumb article since Sanders claims to be a revolutionary socialist.

 

He may be lying. It does seem to be his nature. But I don't trust him.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if he's a socialist, but didn't advocate socialist positions wouldn't that mean he made a craven choice to hide his real agenda to help gain political power?

 

I think the leftists on this forum have spent more (almost all) their time attacking HRC as a candidate instead of looking for issues where liberals and leftist could find common cause. That is pretty consistent with the political history of the left in this country, where leftist groups have alway engaged in internecine warfare with other leftists to splinter their "movement" over the slightest ideological division.

 

It is a losing stratey. Now and then. It make the left unreliable allies.

 

Trump is on the eve of his inaguration—takings in no small part to leftists tactics—and her they still are re-fighting a primary that they lost. Talk about stupidity.

 

But the Left never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

Bill

 

Sanders didn't hide anything and he's not dishonest. People on this forum have talked about raising the minimum wage, strong regulations on Wall Street, and universal healthcare. Most people here whether left or liberal are strong civil libertarians, pro-choice on abortion, and for LGBT rights. These are areas of agreement even when Hillary Clinton elicits strongly negative feelings. Many if not most people here wanted her to win the election. As for your point about the history of the unreliable left. That may be true of most old left 1930s communists but there have been members of the democratic left like Michael Harrington, who helped Lyndon Johnson in developing The War On Poverty in the 1960s that were and remain valuable allies to say the least. I fear most of the problem with missed opportunities lies with us liberals who won't even claim the label and think too much about " the center " rather than a bold liberal agenda that challenges this predatory capitalism we live under. Spy Car put aside the Cold War style " red baiting " and let's move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders didn't hide anything and he's not dishonest. People on this forum have talked about raising the minimum wage, strong regulations on Wall Street, and universal healthcare. Most people here whether left or liberal are strong civil libertarians, pro-choice on abortion, and for LGBT rights. These are areas of agreement even when Hillary Clinton elicits strongly negative feelings. Many if not most people here wanted her to win the election. As for your point about the history of the unreliable left. That may be true of most old left 1930s communists but there have been members of the democratic left like Michael Harrington, who helped Lyndon Johnson in developing The War On Poverty in the 1960s that were and remain valuable allies to say the least. I fear most of the problem with missed opportunities lies with us liberals who won't even claim the label and think too much about " the center " rather than a bold liberal agenda that challenges this predatory capitalism we live under. Spy Car put aside the Cold War style " red baiting " and let's move forward.

We will have to disagree about Sanders veracity (or lack thereof).

 

I entirely agree that liberals and leftists ought to be natural allies on many issues. But tell it to the Left who have cost good liberals elections on multiple occasions. It is a shame.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to disagree about Sanders veracity (or lack thereof).

 

I entirely agree that liberals and leftists ought to be natural allies on many issues. But tell it to the Left who have cost good liberals elections on multiple occasions. It is a shame.

 

Bill

 

You overestimate the power of leftists on Democratic Party politics. Liberals in the party have failed to articulate a coherent and compelling alternative vision to the American people. Since the defeat of George McGovern in 1972 we've been moving toward a center that is constantly pulled further right. Moderates like Bill Clinton and moderate liberals like President Obama and Hillary Clinton have not done enough to challenge income inequality, corporate power, or expand on progress made towards racial and gender equality. The only reason the LGBT communities have made so much progress is because they are well organized and persistent. I say this as someone who admires the President and former Secretary of State Clinton. Neither of them is liberal enough. But a person who proudly calls himself a democratic socialist - Bernie Sanders talks in ways and favors liberal polices ​ I like. That's our problem as liberals not the left's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You overestimate the power of leftists on Democratic Party politics. Liberals in the party have failed to articulate a coherent and compelling alternative vision to the American people. Since the defeat of George McGovern in 1972 we've been moving toward a center that is constantly pulled further right. Moderates like Bill Clinton and moderate liberals like President Obama and Hillary Clinton have not done enough to challenge income inequality, corporate power, or expand on progress made towards racial and gender equality. The only reason the LGBT communities have made so much progress is because they are well organized and persistent. I say this as someone who admires the President and former Secretary of State Clinton. Neither of them is liberal enough. But a person who proudly calls himself a democratic socialist - Bernie Sanders talks in ways and favors liberal polices ​ I like. That's our problem as liberals not the left's.

No. It understand that leftists represent a small majority in the real world (as opposed to this forum). But in tight elections the actions of those who don't vote or, worse, actively undermine the Dmocratic nominee, can hurt the outcome enough to elect people like Trump.

 

You will remember that McGovern was an electoral disaster. Candidates like Clinton and Obama not only won (twice each) but we're very good liberal presidents. Far (far) better tan the GOP alternatives.

 

HRC would have been a fine liberal Democratic president. She'd have deliver on the issues leftist claim to care about. But their actions (in the main) helped elect Trump. So a small minority has the capacity to wreak havoc. A position they seem to enjoy as part of the "First Hitler, The Us" that has enabled fascists getting power time and again around the world.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dem party is usually a compromise party. Even if they have the majority they tend to move slightly to the right in an effort to achieve bipartisanship. When the conholes have a majority they go far right and don't give a shit about bipartisanship.

So now that we need a true opposition party I fear that we are fresh outa luck

 

It's not a question of means. Democrats have an organization and voters but they lack the will to fight. It's takes a strong will to stand up and oppose the Rightwing GOP because they have clear convictions, unity, and connections to a grassroots base. When a conservative Republican doesn't vote like it he/she pays a price among voters and activists. However Congressional Democrats who are often liberal by any measure vote centrist and don't fight. But they don't pay a price among voters. There used to be Democrats like Senators Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts who proudly called themselves liberals and fought for things that made America better. They had the will to fight. That's what Democrats need now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats have the will to fight, and we will do so.

 

Hubert Humphrey, the man you call a great liberal, was taken down electorally by the Left in 68. We got Nixon instead.

 

The defeatist tactics and treachery of the Left are nothing new. The Sanders movement was just the latest variation of a very bad tradition of helping elect people like Nixon, W, and Trump by hurting good liberals.

 

The Left is like a scorpion that can't change its nature, stings, and we all die.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Counterculture and New Left radicals of the 1960s didn't help the Liberal Consensus to say the least but I don't think they brought down Hubert Humphrey. People especially a lot of working class whites union members wrongly blamed liberals for race riots and mismanaging the Vietnam War. Nixon ran on law and order at home and Peace with honor in the war. I still think you make the left too powerful and menacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Counterculture and New Left radicals of the 1960s didn't help the Liberal Consensus to say the least but I don't think they brought down Hubert Humphrey. People especially a lot of working class whites union members wrongly blamed liberals for race riots and mismanaging the Vietnam War. Nixon ran on law and order at home and Peace with honor in the war. I still think you make the left too powerful and menacing.

 

The Left isn't powerful, but menacing enough to throw the 1968 election to Nixon.

 

It only took 500 or so votes to allow the travesty of 2000. So it doesn't take great numbers of people to monkey-wrench an election in a country as divided as this one.

 

The Left doesn't care if liberals (and liberal values lose) as they see their only opening as things getting so fucked up that a swing to the totalitarian left happens as part of a right-left dialectic. It is the "First Hitler, Then Us" enumerated by such political knucklehead as Susan Sarandon. So they are thrilled Trump won. It furthers their purposes no matter how deluded that reasoning is or how many people will pay dearly for their fanaticism.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sanders movement was just the latest variation of a very bad tradition of helping elect people like Nixon, W, and Trump by hurting good liberals.

The Sanders movement ignited interest in American politics like no other campaign in modern history. Since he didn't get the nomination, the blame is squarely on Clinton for having a server in her basement, for lying repeatedly, and for promising things that most people felt she'd never follow through on. The reason Clinton lost was because millions didn't believe anything she said. It had NOTHING to do with Bernie.

 

 

 

The Left is like a scorpion that can't change its nature, stings, and we all die.

 

Bill

Odd. :huh: You're part of the left, just like everyone in this sub-forum (your personally crafted definitions aside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • By king of the county

    Test


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...