Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Democratic Party of the past is not the Democratic Party of today. The Democrats of today would be marching in the streets against traditional Democrats.
It is a socialist party,”. “Today’s Democratic Party has completely abandoned the ‘middle ground.’ It is now a full-on ‘progressive party’ with an agenda and platform almost indistinguishable from that of the Communist Party, or Democratic Socialists of America.
The Democratic Party of the past is not the Democratic Party of today. The Democrats of today would be marching in the streets against traditional Democrats.
Chris Matthews asked: "what's the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You're the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist."
Wasserman Schultz laughed, looked stunned, and began hemming and hawing
The explanation is simple. There is no real distinction between today's Democrats and socialists.
A few years ago Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., conducted hearings in which she grilled oil executives. She threatened to nationalize their business. Did any Democrat speak out against her threat? No.
I agree that the Democrats lost focus of what they should be supporting and need to make some changes. But the idea that the current Democratic party is somehow socialist (which, furthering my suspicion that this article is not spot on, was used apparently synonymous with Democratic Socialist, Progressive, and Communist... those are all different words becasue they mean something different... funny how that works). Even if there are socialists in the party, the policy coming from the party does not seem very socialist. At worst, you have some radical leftist faction within the Democratic party. And even then...
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,666,308 times
Reputation: 9169
The difference is I and other Democrats aren't advocating for government ownership of all businesses. THAT is socialism. I am in support of capitalism, but with redistribution, because laissez-faire capitalism is horrible at allocating resources, it gives a few more than they'll ever need while starving the vast majority.
I agree that the Democrats lost focus of what they should be supporting and need to make some changes. But the idea that the current Democratic party is somehow socialist (which, furthering my suspicion that this article is not spot on, was used apparently synonymous with Democratic Socialist, Progressive, and Communist... those are all different words becasue they mean something different... funny how that works). Even if there are socialists in the party, the policy coming from the party does not seem very socialist. At worst, you have some radical leftist faction within the Democratic party. And even then...
Bernie Sanders who calls himself a socialist has always caucused with Democrats, and they are perfectly comfortable with him. He was rising in the polls and we know how that ended. If there is a distinction between him and Obama on anything major, what is it?
- Both pushed "universal health care."
- Both believe in the redistribution of income.
- Obama wants 2 years of "free" community college. Sanders wants to make college "free" altogether.
- Both belong to the school of economics that says, "you didn't build that."
Today's Democrats, like Wasserman Schultz, would deride Kennedy as a greedy Republican advocate of "trickle down."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.