Saturday, February 6, 2016
NO!! Douse the Bern!
Muhammad Rasheed - If You’re Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You’re Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears
Muhammad Rasheed - There's no WAY putting a "Democratic Socialist" (Communist) in the White House would be "evolving."
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Why not? America Is WAY behind when it comes to democratic socialism.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Democratic socialism" is what the communists renamed themselves after their experiment crashed & burned. Infecting us with that disease until it consumes us will be the ultimate joke, laughing at ourselves towards our own destruction. Nothing about democratic socialism is progress.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Hogwash. Democratic socialism is what exists and succeeds in Norway, Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Iceland, France, Canada and many more countries. Communism was only ever totalitarianism.
Jeremy Travis - If Democratic Socialism is so bad, why does it work so well in other countries?
Muhammad Rasheed - Norway isn't a democratic socialist system. Their conservative party took the majority seats in 2013. Their central gov has total power, and their socialist part is a social-democracy.
Sweden has continuously reversed its position on allowing free markets and re-privatization of public industries since the 1980s, which means it is not a democratic socialist society, but a social-democracy.
For the most part, Germany is a lot like the USA with 2 parties dominating the political landscape. One is the center-left Christian Democratic party, and the other is the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Germany is not a democratic socialist system.
New Zealand is similar to Germany, with its left political dominating party being a social democratic one, not a democratic socialist system.
Iceland's system makes groups of political parties work together. Their democratic socialist party is ranked as the 3rd most influential, but they are still watered down by the Eco-socialism, Euroscepticism, and Feminism ideologies. Social democracy and liberal conservatism have way more influence to consider Iceland to be democratic socialist.
France's Socialist Party is split between the social democrats and the democratic socialist, with the former having the lead in influence.
Canada's largest socialist party is the New Democratic Party, and they are social democratic.
So it turns out your "hogwash" comment was complete nonsense, Marc.
Jeremy Travis - What's the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy?
Marc Keelan-Bishop - I think your definition is quite narrow. Democratic socialism is not antithetical to capitalism. Even the most right wing parties in most of the countries I mentioned are socially democratic.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - And you can't go by the name of the party. Don't forget that China goes by The peoples DEMOCRATIC republic of China.
Muhammad Rasheed - @Marc... I'm not going by the name of the party, I'm going by the party's stated ideology and goals.
Muhammad Rasheed - A social democracy seeks to fix or soften the problems with traditional capitalism so that an ideal capitalist-socialist blend is created in society.
Democratic socialism has no use for capitalism at all, feels that is is 100% evil and must go, and works to gradually convert it over to a full socialist system. It is Communism by another name. Literally.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Where do you get this definition of "Democratic socialism" vs "social democracy?
Muhammad Rasheed - Political Ideologies: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood
Social Justice by David Miller
Muhammad Rasheed - where do you get your extra, extra broad definition of democratic socialism? So broad that that it treats the two different ideologies as if they are synonymous?
Muhammad Rasheed - Which I've noticed a lot on FB since Sanders has been getting more and more word-of-mouth attention.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - You are the first person I have ever read who differentiated between democratic socialism and social democracy.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're welcome. lol
Marc Keelan-Bishop - yours is certainly not the definition of what Sanders stands for.
Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, it is. He's a sneaky ass.
Muhammad Rasheed - Democratic Socialists work towards a gradual transformation from capitalism to total communism. Gradual.
So of course in the beginning they are going to pretend to be social democracy advocates.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - @Muhammad Rasheed… Hogwash again. He's for a rebalancing of capitalism, which has run amok in America. He seeks a balance like in the other countries I described.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's what the democratic socialist says in the beginning. "Rebalancing." He's easing you into his true goal.
Muhammad Rasheed - You never did say where you got your own definition for the term.
Who told you this?
Muhammad Rasheed - Tell me.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - My definition simply comes from reading about politics over time. Again, i've never come across a parsing of those terms the way you describe, and I have not read those two books.
I will ask this: what communist régime ever came in gradually? I can't think of a single one that was not the result of a violent revolution.
Muhammad Rasheed - You read about politics where?
Marc Keelan-Bishop - @Muhammad Rasheed… Newspapers, magazines, biographies.
Muhammad Rasheed - Which newspapers? What magazines? Biographies written by who?
Marc Keelan-Bishop - I read regularly The Globe and Mail, The Week UK, The Guardian, New York Times, Maclean's, Hill Times, LA Times, The Walrus, The National Post, Jerusalem Post.
Loads of biographies over the years, but the best recent one is Mao, by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday.
But of course all of that is besides the point. You are ascribing nefarious hidden motives to Saunders based on what appears to be an uncommon definition of a term. Everything Saunders says shows that he would like to work toward the type of capitalism enjoyed in the countries i described.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's not beside the point. The layperson, even the journalists from your favorite rags, think that every term with 'socialist' in it is interchangeable with every other. Meanwhile they each refer to a very specific thing, and when an actual career politician SME singles one out for his personal self-identification, it also means a very specific thing.
Sanders shows no less than the sneaky manipulative tactics of the Red Menace (i wear my melodrama proudly as a comic book writer).
Thomas Mack - I am forming a new political called Living On a Lonely Islandist... or LOLI for short. The LOLI party grows their own food, uses solar power, and purifies the surrounding water of the island to drink. The only requirement to be a Loyal Loli-ist is the desire to remove ones self from the current governments of the world and answer to your own sovereignty and the creator God... Now to find an unoccupied Island.
Andre Roberts - Doesn't matter to me. Whichever Dem gets it will get my vote.
Todd Holland - Hillary lost to a Black man in racist ass America...Let that sink in...She is near unelectable...I wouldn't back her McCain or Romney for dog catcher...
Muhammad Rasheed - He wasn't just any Black man. Obama represented the polar opposite of everything Bush did, and with his sharp wit and charisma, won over the independents and the youth for two landslides. Hillary will be good because she'll partner with Obama's agenda and work to make permanent the Executive Orders he put in; she won't sabotage his agenda the way Sander's is guaranDamnTeed to do. Hillary's problem is that she lacks charisma, and comes across "wrong" on camera, like Bob Dole or Gore or somebody.
Todd Holland - Hillary will/would be another scandal ridden mess that will sell out Obama,Black folks,her mother if it would keep herself in power...I ain't pro Sanders either,but I have no illusions about Clinton standing for ANYTHING but gaining or keeping power.
Muhammad Rasheed - Obama did partner with the Clinton agenda on many of his items... this was no secret. His commitment to strengthening the middle class is something that needs to continue so it will be cinched in for keeps. Hillary will do so, Sanders will not. The idea of a "strong & prosperous" middle class doesn't give him a warm & fuzzy. He will sabotage that for his bs commie foolishness at the country's expense.
Look! Up in the Sky! Is it Obama 2.0?
A Sinister Long-Term Goal for America
Diehard Cheerleaders Amaze All By Cheering
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment