Patterico's Pontifications

7/30/2015

What’s The Difference Between A Democrat And A Socialist?

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:50 pm

[guest post by Dana]

It’s funny when the DNC Chair can’t come up with an answer.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D., Fla.).

“Uh,” Wasserman-Schultz responded.

“I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews said. “What do you think?”

“The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz said.

Matthews didn’t let her off easily.

“Yeah but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist?” Matthews said. “You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.”

“The relevant debate that we’ll be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz repeated.

–Dana

56 Responses to “What’s The Difference Between A Democrat And A Socialist?”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. The problem, of course, is today’s Democrats do not understand what is the difference between being a Democrat and a Socialist.

    FDR may have had Socialist tendencies and totalitarian views about American government to solve the Depression. Sure, he did try to stack the Supreme Court, but he did accede when his plans failed. He also never directly disrupted the electorate with the intention of establishing a Socialist state.

    In other words, he was never a real Socialist. Like him or not, he believed in the American people. As a wartime President, he had to understand that his ideal of a state for the people was too close to National Socialists and Imperial divinity. Harry Truman certainly understood the difference.

    I will make a generalization. Most voters in American have no idea what Socialism entails. That’s why the vote for our current Democrat Party.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  3. they, not the in my last paragraph.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  4. That she is still the Chair of the DNC shows that Dems are incapable of being embarrassed.

    JD (55fcd6)

  5. Debbie was told there would be no math questions.

    Estragon (ada867)

  6. DWS is proof of the early critique of Obama’s Administration. One insider complained the best advisers on any given issue were being ignored because Obama cannot stand to be in the presence of anyone obviously more intelligent than he is. He is insulated in a small group of cloying sycophants who tell him how great he is and carefully screen his personal contacts to weed out the really smart people.

    It does explain a lot of the stupid mistakes over the years.

    And Wasserman-Schultz certainly isn’t going to threaten anyone with her intellect.

    Estragon (ada867)

  7. In other words, he was never a real Socialist. Like him or not, he believed in the American people.

    In general terms, both the politics and culture of America are far more liberal or leftwing in 2015 than they were when FDR was in the White House. The current degree of liberalism has been working its way through the American system for over 40 to 50 years, so centrists of the past are more liable to be liberals today and, in turn, liberals of the past are more likely to be ultra-liberals today. A good example of that phenomenon at play can be seen in ongoing opinion polls, which show the public’s attitude about same-sex marriage today versus 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 30 years ago, etc.

    Mark (f32097)

  8. trick question.

    #duh

    redc1c4 (589173)

  9. The answer is obvious. A socialist will be honest about being a socialist; a Democrat will lie about being a socialist and stammer like a moron (the severely questionable hair and fish lips are optional) when pressed on the matter.

    tops116 (d094f8)

  10. Mr 116 wrote:

    The answer is obvious. A socialist will be honest about being a socialist; a Democrat will lie about being a socialist and stammer like a moron (the severely questionable hair and fish lips are optional) when pressed on the matter.

    A Democrat is a socialist who wants to actually win an election (outside of Vermont, of course.)

    And the new word of the day is “progressive.” They hope that the low information voters will see that as someone promoting progress, but progress is the last thing that they want.

    The Dana who appreciates honesty; dishonesty, not so much (f6a568)

  11. Mr 80 wrote:

    I will make a generalization. Most voters in American have no idea what Socialism entails. That’s why the vote for our current Democrat Party.

    The appeal of socialism is the share-and-share-alike notion. Many people are uncomfortable with capitalism because while capitalism produces many winners, there are also many losers under it. Capitalism is the system which proves the untruth of the notion that we are all created equal, because we most certainly are not: some people are simply smarter or stronger or better than others, in ways which lead to different economic outcomes. Sadly, too many winners in our capitalist system think that everybody else really is as good as they are, and that the ones who aren’t as successful were treated unfairly. The left cannot accept the notion that it’s the fault of the people who are unsuccessful that they are unsuccessful.

    The Dana who recognizes the underlying problem (f6a568)

  12. Socialism is the corral colony; capitalism is the shark; Democrats are the remoras.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. In fancy words, socialism is symbiotic; capitalism is predatory; western welfare state liberalism is parasitic.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Okay then, nk. What’s the difference between socialism and western welfare state liberalism?

    I don’t think you’re getting the point. Answer: Nothing!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  15. Socialism obligates the citizen to contribute to society and parasites are sent to gulags to dig a road for Stalin to the North Pole with wooden shovels; western welfare state liberalism pays them parassites to kill only each in their ghettos and trailer parks and not to scare the lower middle class more than it is necessary to keep it paying for police and prisons to protect the property of the moneyed classes.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. And that’s three (times that I’ve explained it), Hoagie.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. tinglewhore should ask president food stamp the same question i think

    happyfeet (831175)

  18. both the politics and culture of America are far more liberal or leftwing in 2015 than they were when FDR was in the White House.

    The radical leftists of the 60s became the professors after they accumulated enough time on student deferments to avoid the draft. Then they spent 40 years teaching American students their leftist philosophy. Now, young Americans know no history, do not appreciate literature, real literature and they think the Kardashians are philosophers.

    Gramsci planned all this as a way to introduce communism to people who had been “de-educated” in western values.

    Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how states use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies.

    The trouble is that his methods worked but communism has failed. Those empty minds are vulnerable to the radical Islam of ISIS and they are a real problem for the western world.

    Coming to a Mall near you.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  19. Read this essay (or OpEd), it’s very short. The Road Away From Revolution by Woodrow Wilson (yes, that Woodrow Wilson). It totally reveals the way socialist movements scared the haute bourgeoisie spitless forcing them to adopt progressivism as a safety valve.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Don’t get uppity with me, nk. You haven’t explained a thing. You keep pointing out stuff all three economic/political systems do to one degree or another. I’ve explained it to you once: there is no difference. That was Matthews point. And that’s why lips Schultz had no answer. Now you can bloviate all ya want but here isn’t a scintilla of difference between todays democrat platform and a socialist platform. And now that they’ve taken to booing God maybe not even the communist platform.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  21. nk, The Road Away From Revolution was written a century ago. The question is what is the difference between the democrat party and socialism today, not before we were born.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  22. You’re right, Hoagie.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. nk,

    Good link. It seems to me Wilson rejects the Rule of Law in favor of Sotomayor-style justice and to undermine capitalism. Is that how you see it?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  24. Speaking of math questions. Depressing, isn’t it?,

    DRJ (1dff03)

  25. A classical socialist of decades ago would not be trying to destroy the coal industry to take one example. They might actually be better in some ways than Democrats. The enviro nuttiness of the Democrats is really at odds with traditional socialism.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  26. I would say entrepreneurial capitalism at least, DRJ, while coopting the workers rights movement and making it a tool of the crony class. To which he belonged.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. Under socialism and communism the most ruthless people always end up running the show. And once they’re running the show, they shoot the idealists in the head and kick them out the back door to end up in the pile of bodies that are stacked there.

    Joe Miller (64cdc0)

  28. The post above referencing Gramsci is spot on. Changing the educational system from teaching HOW to think, in favor of brainwashing the masses on WHAT to think, makes it so much easier to place greater and greater deadweight onto the economic engine of a capitalist nation until it collapses. The unthinking brainwashed masses then readily swallow the leftist propaganda about the “rich” being greedy as the cause of all poverty and economic “unfairness”.

    To illustrate the decline of true intellectual power, consider that today virtually every teen and adult has a cellphone with more computer power in their hands than the US government had when we landed men on the moon in 1969…yet such power is used to post selfies on FB or to follow the latest doings of one of the Khardashians.

    Pete (ceb4bf)

  29. Socialism is a religion based on the belief, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that your neighbors should be allowed to decide how hard you work and how wealthy you get instead of merely if they want to pay you what you are charging for your services or goods.

    At the level of Party Leadership, a Democrat is a would-be Aristocrat who cloaks his lust for mastery over his fellow citizens in the religion of Socialism.

    A Republican at that same level is one who hopes that if he plays nicely with the New Aristocrats he will be allowed some scraps from their table.

    The outrage that the Democrats feel over the occasional real Conservative or Libertarian impulse is founded on the fear that the Peasants may revolt.

    C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc)

  30. Asked and answered.

    Sewer Urchin (5b7398)

  31. Mr A wrote:

    A classical socialist of decades ago would not be trying to destroy the coal industry to take one example. They might actually be better in some ways than Democrats. The enviro nuttiness of the Democrats is really at odds with traditional socialism.

    A point I wish I’d thought of, and it’s right. Karl Marx saw socialism/communism as a mass movement of the workers, and the workers would be the last people who would kill the jobs of their comrades to try, try! to get half a degree of cooling in the next century.

    Today’s socialists, or at least the “intellectual” elites, aren’t really working class, but the well-to-do, who can afford doubled electric bills, and get to go to the wine-and-brie parties; they are not only well-to-do, but they grew up well off, have no fornicating idea what it’s like to live paycheck-to-paycheck, and no idea just what the policies they favor would do to the people they claim to want to help.

    The student of Communism Dana (f6a568)

  32. Re. # 31;

    Exactly; these are the children of privilege (funny how they apply that term other), deeply concerned with their own social more and tropes and totally divorced from reality.

    C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc)

  33. Easy, in the past there have been some good Democrats, there have never been good socialists.

    JNorth (5fe1bf)

  34. JNorth;

    nonsense, there have been PLENTY of good socialists . Stalin made whole graveyards full.

    C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc)

  35. “The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz said.

    That’s easy. Unlike Democrats, Republicans aren’t socialists.

    Next topic?

    Karl Lembke (e37f42)

  36. The look on her face when Tingles asked “What’s the difference between a Democrat ans a socialist” was classic… she was caught flatfooted and could not come up with an answer.

    Another shining moment for the Donks and Debbie Dingbat

    Pimp Daddy Welfare (cfe252)

  37. Poodleman-Shultz looks flushed and embarrassed… she DOES embarrass easy.

    Colonel Haiku (3bf827)

  38. Harold Laski one of the leaders of the Labor party was a socialist, he wanted FDR to nationalize the corporations much as they did in the UK, so is Schakowsky, a fan favorite, Maxine Waters, Grijalva in Arizona, to be ecumenical

    narciso (ee1f88)

  39. Easy: the Socialist is honest, claiming to be a Socialist. The Democrat is dishonest, claiming to be a Democrat while being a Socialist.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  40. What this shows is that Wasserman-Schultz is an ignorant twit. Any politcally literate person could explain how the Democratic Party is not socialist.

    Red Socialism, the Second International stuff, asserts that the wealth of society is a common creation and should be equally shared in common. In particular, socialism regards accumulation of private wealth as theft, and demands its confiscation and redistribution. Also, usually control of major assets by “the people” acting through the government or by “the workers”. This flavor of thinking was thoroughly discredited, to the point where nominally “socialist” governments cut taxes and privatized state enterprises (hello, Tony Blair), or went from outright Bolshevism to full-scale capitalism (hello, Deng Hsiao-ping). It’s come back as a cloud of vague “capitalism is dead” sloganeering among fashionable intellectuals and academics, but has no actual weight.

    “Democracy” is the principle that the people are the basis of sovereignty, and that the officials of the state should be chosen by and answerable to the people. But democracy is only procedure for deciding policy (through choice of personnel), not policy in itself.

    The Democratic Party advocates democratic government, of course. In policy terms, the Democratic Party is the party of the welfare state, of high taxes and high spending, aggressive regulation, and incidentally of corporate welfare. Also of labor unionism, which has historic connections to Red Socialism, but isn’t socialist itself.

    These policies are in the long term economically destructive and rhetorically hostile to private wealth, but in practice there is not the slightest chance of the Democrats engaging in general redistribution or nationalization. There are lots of very rich Democrats, and lots of connections between the Democrats and Wall Street. Obama is the President from Goldman Sachs, not a Commissar.

    The real interests of the Left these days aren’t about money. The Left is mainly interested in supporting criminals and perverts – the sort of people the old Reds used to put against the wall along with the capitalists. And non-whites.

    Rich Rostrom (d2c6fd)

  41. Remember the scene in Dr Zhivago where the soldier is celebrating the revolution? The old geezer asks, “This Lenin, will he be the new tsar?” The younger soldier screams, “No more tsars, no more masters, only workers in a workers’ state!”

    Even if you accept that premise of socialism, what the Democrats of today have enabled is for non-workers in a welfare state to survive.

    Marxism/socialism/communism was always based upon a flawed understanding of human nature. Herr Marx thought that the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie, and that the proletariat would be pretty much single-minded about it; everyone would agree.

    Capitalism is based on a much more realistic view of human nature, that, in the end, everyone works in his own better interests. Under Marxian views, there would be no lazy scumbags, because everyone would be willing to pitch in and do his share; only the handicapped, the people who couldn’t work, wouldn’t work. The socialists have never come to grips with what capitalism predicts, that some people who could work would still choose not to work, if they could still survive not working.

    The Democrats have, in effect, undercut socialism — not that socialism could ever work — by making indolence survivable.

    The realistic Dana (f6a568)

  42. The Democrats have, in effect, undercut socialism — not that socialism could ever work — by making indolence survivable.

    Yup. You can’t have a worker’s paradise without a paradise with a work ethic. The reason Communism is succeeding wildly in China is because you have Chinese raised on hard work and respect for one’s elders (for three thousand years to boot). Which, BTW, is why Boonesborough succeeded too (except for the three thousand years).

    nk (dbc370)

  43. Strictly speaking and by definition as well as application all you guys are correct. The differences between a Democrat and a socialist are, or should be at least, legion. But the question put forth by Matthews was not about theory, or history, or what should be by the definition. The question was: “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?”.

    The answer, the way the Democrat party is today in America is nothing! If conservatives like you don’t have the heart to see that then the Republic is really finished because the real, old time Democrats can’t see it either.

    Rich Rostrom lays out some pretty good definitions of the Democrat party , socialism and democracy (whatever that has to do with it). So does my friend Dana. The problem is socialism in America today is the result of at least 100 years or evolution from hard core communism and such to the type of American socialism the Democrat party represents today.

    Rich also states: “but in practice there is not the slightest chance of the Democrats engaging in general redistribution or nationalization.”. Really? What’s Obamacare if not redistribution? What’s Social Security if not generational redistribution? What’s welfare and entitlement spending if not (as Dana pointed out) redistribution from the workers to the indolent? And if you believe the Democrats were not seeing how far they could push on nationalization with the GM bailout, Solyndra and QE, you are underestimating your enemy and that’s reckless and dangerous.

    Also, “There are lots of very rich Democrats, and lots of connections between the Democrats and Wall Street.” means nothing. There were a lot of rich Soviets.. There are a lot of rich Chinese, I do business with them. There are a lot of rich N. Koreans and Cubans. So what? The leaders of the socialist states even including communists are wealthy. Always have been. You think the leaders of the soft-socialist states in Europe or even Russia are not rich? Are not in bed with industry? Do not control their stock markets and financial sector? At least in the non-socialist nations the little guys can play too.

    Me so sorry. There is no difference between the Democrat party as it has evolved in America and the socialists as they are today in my opinion. If you can’t recognize and identify the enemy you will loose. Isn’t that the reason the great non-socialist Obama refuses to call moslems terrorists?

    In closing, if the Democrat party wasn’t socialist why is Bernie Sanders in it? Or Bill “Pinko” DeBlasio? Or Maxine Waters? Or “we need to spread the wealth around” and “you didn’t build that” Obama? Why do the socialist and communist parties end up endorsing the democrat every election?

    You need to understand in order to win the socialists/communists will do anything and the greatest lie the Devil ever told was to convince people he didn’t exist. Even as and in the Democrat Party.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  44. The reason Communism is succeeding wildly in China is because you have Chinese raised on hard work and respect for one’s elders (for three thousand years to boot).

    Communism is not “succeeding wildly” in China, nk. The introduction of controlled capitalism is. And respect for their elders has nothing to do with it either. It’s fear.

    And before you infer you’re arguing with an idiot like you did last time let me mention I do business in China, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan. My wife is in China at this minute and will be in Korea Monday. She’s in China negotiating with (read: bribing) bureaucrats to allow employees and profits to leave the wildly successful communist nation.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  45. I agree, Hoagie. Controlled capitalism is the only way capitalism works to the benefit of society too. Like an animal which is useful only when it’s domesticated, and good only to itself when allowed to go feral. And a closed economic system inevitably shrinks and collapses in on itself. The Chinese are doing both right with a porous Iron Curtain. Alright, I’m no expert on Chinese culture, I won’t insist on the respect for their elders.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. What about the Amish? They sold me my kitchen cabinets, but 90% of the time they’re a close to totalitarian group. What would you label their social and economic arrangement?

    nk (dbc370)

  47. Just so ya know:

    The forgotten history revolves around the central role played by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, in founding the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or CPC, the largest membership organization within the Democratic Caucus of Congress, currently with 69 declared members.

    What do YOU think? Is there a difference between Democrats and socialists? Sound off in today’s WND poll

    The DSA is the largest socialist organization in the United States and is the principal U.S. affiliate of Socialist International, the worldwide organization of social democratic, socialist and labor parties.

    The CPC is currently co-chaired by Reps. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Keith Ellison, D-Minn. It was founded in 1991 by six member of Congress, including Sanders and Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Ron Dellums, D-Calif.

    An early CPC member was Nancy Pelosi.

    The Democratic Socialists of America’s chief organizing goal has been to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to “socialism” in the eyes of most Americans.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/sanders-1-of-69-democrat-socialists-in-congress/#SScu0k70mIhUmqK0.99

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  48. What would you label their social and economic arrangement?

    I would label their social arrangement voluntary and their economic arrangement capitalism. How are the Amish a “close totalitarian group”? Are they dictating lifestyle, economics, religion, jobs or anything to anyone? They work for their own betterment and when it benefits them to join together for the commonwealth they do so…freely. You and I work to feed and house the indolent…not freely. I realize their high unemployment, crime, divorce, abortion, drug use and out of wedlock birth rates is bad for society….oh wait, sorry wrong group. That’s those indolents in the ghetto again.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  49. How are the Amish a “close totalitarian group”? Are they dictating lifestyle, economics, religion, jobs or anything to anyone?

    They certainly are, Ollie. Totally and completely. If anybody wears a red ribbon or buttons on his clothes, and does not get back into line when given a quiet talking to, he is out of the group. Shunned, exiled, a non-person. An Amish can finish high school beyond the state-required age, go on and become a doctor or an engineer or an astronaut, but he can never come back home. He’s not Amish anymore.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. I meant to anyone outside the Amish community. No one is forced to stay are they? Don’t they actually send the teens out into the world to help them determine if the life is for them? What you noted in #50 makes them a “closed” community, not totalitarian. A totalitarian will kill you if you try to leave, i.e. the Berlin Wall. You could call them a cult, I suppose. But I think they’re just a closed religious and social order. After all, I don’t think one can join as a new member. It’s not the Masons.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  51. Rich also states: “but in practice there is not the slightest chance of the Democrats engaging in general redistribution or nationalization.”. Really? What’s Obamacare if not redistribution? What’s Social Security if not generational redistribution? What’s welfare and entitlement spending if not (as Dana pointed out) redistribution from the workers to the indolent?

    I wrote “general redistribution”. The original goal of the Red Socialists was the confiscation of all private wealth. That is what happened in the USSR, Red China, Cuba, and other Communist states. High-tax/high-spend government is not that.

    And if you believe the Democrats were not seeing how far they could push on nationalization with the GM bailout, Solyndra and QE.

    When Red Socialists talked of nationalization back in the day, they called for government ownership of all railroads, banks, and utilities at a minimum. The Eurosocialists of the 1940s-1960s nationalized steel, coal, and automakers. These were not failing industries to be propped up, but successful companies; that was the point. Solyndra? There was never any intent for Solyndra to be state-owned; it was a crony deal for private profit and public risk. And what on earth could a monetary policy like Quantitive Easing have to do with nationalization of industry?

    Also, “There are lots of very rich Democrats, and lots of connections between the Democrats and Wall Street.” means nothing. There were a lot of rich Soviets. There are a lot of rich Chinese, I do business with them. There are a lot of rich N. Koreans and Cubans.

    There were no rich Soviets; there were Soviets with political influence (the nomenklatura). There are rich Chinese now, but China abandoned socialism in all but name 25 years ago. There are no rich North Koreans; as with the Soviets, the only “wealth” is political clout. Cuba is sufficiently corrupt that some officials have used their political clout to accumulate money held overseas, but they have no “wealth” in Cuba.

    And all of the people in these countries who had wealth before the Revolution lost everything. All the bankers and brokers and merchants were wiped out of business. Do you think the Democrats are going to confiscate the assets of Buffett and Gates and Bloomberg, shut down the NYSE and NASDAQ, turn Wal-Mart and Exelon and Ford and Apple into government enterprises? Are the hedge-fund operators who give millions to the Democrats buying the rope to hang them?

    Rich Rostrom (d2c6fd)

  52. Do you think the Democrats are going to confiscate the assets of Buffett and Gates and Bloomberg, shut down the NYSE and NASDAQ, turn Wal-Mart and Exelon and Ford and Apple into government enterprises?

    No I do not Rich. Communists do that, not socialists. The question was not ” what’s the difference between A Democrat and a communist”, it was between a Democrat and a socialist. Still none! Sorry.

    You also stated ” but China abandoned socialism in all but name 25 years ago. “. No they did not. They abandoned communism. You really need to sort out your ism’s. I deal with Chinese socialists every week. They’re more corrupt than Hillary!, Harry Reid and the mob put together. So when you state the Soviet hierarchy wasn’t rich and blah, blah, blah it means nothing. We’re not talking commies. But just so you know when one controls all the wealth of a nation he’s rich. You can call it the nomenklatura or you can call it Clamato juice. It’s still being rich. The wealthiest men I know ( one owns a football team and one a high price dept. store) walk around without a dime in their pocket. That my friend is rich, Rich!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  53. Also, “There are lots of very rich Democrats, and lots of connections between the Democrats and Wall Street.” means nothing. There were a lot of rich Soviets.. There are a lot of rich Chinese, I do business with them. There are a lot of rich N. Koreans and Cubans. So what? The leaders of the socialist states even including communists are wealthy. Always have been. You think the leaders of the soft-socialist states in Europe or even Russia are not rich?

    There are plenty of “champagne socialists” or “limousine liberals” out there, perhaps best exemplified by the ultra-liberals put into office in Greece, who were saber-rattling towards the international banksters, telling them to go take a hike, until the last minute when those same leftists gave in and decided to bend to the demands of the EU and its financial entities.

    Creature comforts are such a strong lure that even the biggest, most idealistic proletarian liberal, when push comes to shove, will eventually succumb to such comforts, even if it makes then the epitome of a two-faced liberal, a “limousine liberal” or “champagne socialist,” if you will.

    That’s why the best way to test the ideology of such people is to force them to move to the center of leftism-on-steroids, the city of Detroit, or the non-champagne-socialist portions of a Venezuela or Mexico.

    Also, a leftist system means the demographics of a community or society become even more important, because very liberal policies and politicians make upholding the integrity of the honor system far more crucial. Simply put, if too many people take advantage of (and exploit) the concept of “free lunches, snacks and office supplies handed out to all employees at the office!!,” the house of cards is more likely to come down all around the people in such settings. So places like San Francisco ultimately are saved only because of the power of good ol’ capitalism on real estate, which forces certain people out of the community (ie, underachievers or ne’er-do-wells), certain people into the community (ie, “champagne socialists” with plenty of college degrees).

    Mark (f32097)

  54. This is entertaining.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/debbie-doubles-down-on-socialism.php

    …Today Chuck Todd of NBC’s “Meet the Press” renewed the question, and Schultz doubles down on her clueless non-answer. This has gone from embarrassing to stunningly incompetent. It’s one thing to be unprepared for Chris Matthews asking the question in his typical machine-gun fashion, but she’s had several days to come up with a serious answer, and clearly can’t. Maybe because there isn’t one: It’s socialists all the way down in the Democratic Party today. Enjoy this 1:45 long pathetic spectacle:

    I respect the guys at PowerLine for their intellectual firepower, but I have to respectfully disagree with Steven Hayward here. Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn’t unprepared for the question. She did come up with the answer. The people at the DNC have clearly brainstormed this, and this is the prepared answer they’ve come up with. They knew the question would come up again, so they put their top men on it. Excuse me; top gender non-conforming people on it.

    Top. Gender non-conforming. People (is that speciesist of me?).

    So this is what passes for clever rhetorical jiu-jiutsu among the best minds at the DNC.

    And, yes, that includes DWS. After a lengthy brianstorming session, they gave DWS this advice:

    “Debbie, avoid the trap. Shift the focus to the important difference in this race; the difference between Democrats and Republicans.”

    So here she is putting her prepared, prepared mind you, answer into practice beginning at the 0:54 second mark:

    The important distinction that I think we’re going to be discussing, and I’m confident we’ll be discussing during this campaign, is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    So she’s answering the question, straight up. There is no important distinction between socialists and democrats.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  55. Quite frankly, someone needs to ask Hillary! what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist is. I’d love to hear her convoluted explanation. After all it’s she who is running for president not Dummie Whatshername-Sh!tz. I’m wondering with the clowns we currently have in the GOP if there actually is a difference between the Republican and Democrat party.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3328 secs.