• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Putting Democratic first makes it slightly more left but in the modern world they amount to similar things. In essence they want stricter government controls on capitalism. I’d say most Americans also want that as was reflected in the wall street protests. People just haven’t seen enough examples of socialism and get a skewed negative perspective of it from Republicans who have a vested interest in keeping the truth from people. When your job depends on you not understanding - you don’t understand it.

    • It absolutely does not amount to the similar things...

      Social Democracy - Strong horizontal social programs alongside robust economic capitalism.

      Democratic Socialism - Socialism achieved through democratic means.

      That is not the same thing by any interpretation. There has been no successful socialist country, but there have been several that have resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Google the "Four Pests Campaign" of Mao, I'm sure you know what happened under socialism in the Soviet Union or Cuba. The latest example, of course, is Venezuela.

      The Cuban Americans in southern Florida know the difference, and they voted out their Democratic Representative because of it.

      There is no need to pretend social democracy and socialism are the same thing. There is no need to make excuses for socialists. If they are really closet social democrats there is no stigma in coming out. There is a reason they self identify as socialist and not social democrat.

      It is not "keeping the truth" from people when there is a credible threat of the Democratic Party being co-opted by socialists. We've already seen the playbook written by the Tea Party, and people see Democrats making the same false rationalizations you're making. Rationalizations that will no doubt seem reasonable to them until it's too late, just as with the Tea Party.

    • Do you really truly think she wants a socialist country to an extent that no one has gone before? It sounds like Breitbart news talking. It’s so typical of the right to compare socialism to venezuala when in fact what AOC wants is moving towards Canada, Denmark and Sweden. It’s a semantic game played by Republicans to create fear just like I said earlier.

    • It sounds like Breitbart news talking.

      Why? What conspiracy theory have I put forward, in what way is what I'm asserting anything other than the logical conclusion to the available facts. If AOC is not a socialist, as you assert without any evidence and contrary to what I've shown you (which is not disputed), why doesn't she just come out and say so... why has Sanders always insisted he's a socialist when, as you assert, he's a social democrat? If they did that, there would be no credible accusation from Republicans otherwise. She literally self identifies as a socialist and you can't accept her at her word I assume because that would mean she's not really the person you've built up in your mind.

      There are populations in the US that fled countries that imposed socialism in order to find a better life. They're not about to support any party that appears to embrace what they left behind. If the only alternative to socialism is Republican... more people will vote that way.

      And that is exactly what we saw in this election.

    • Here is Joe Biden's eulogy at Strom Thurmond's funeral. Very powerful. Why am I bringing this up? Because I think one of Biden's main strenghts will be his ability to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans in the senate better than Obama did. Not Obama's fault. He just wasn't in the Senate for very long.

      Given the relationships Biden built in the Senate, I think the Republicans are going to have a harder time stonewalling him. Thoughts?

    • I truly hope you are right. Over the past two or three decades, the word 'Compromise' has been denigrated by partizans on both the left and right in American politics. In many ways Joe Biden is a throwback, a politician who thrived in an environment where compromise was a good thing; when working together for the common good, when "giving a little to get a little" made government actually function, and we common citizens could realistically believe that our leaders were looking out for us and better days were ahead.

      The challenges our new President faces are unprecedented. But I feel so much better about my grandchildren's future than I did just hours ago.

    • She’s a supporter of Sanders and this identifies as the same. But look at what they want and you’ll clearly see it’s like Canada and not the socialism you imagine. Focus on what they want and not on the name that for you conjures up Images of Venezuela. Which by the way is largely like that because they use the government coffers to supplement and cheapen gasoline rates. But never mind that. AOC and Bernie just want to move towards the things all other advanced countries have except for the United States.

    • Obama thought he could be a pragmatist. If not for the short time they had control of the house they’d have gotten almost nothing past. Republicans want to block almost everything progressive the Democrats want to do. Not unlike the Democrats blocking Trump’s wall. At least they’ve both agreed to spend the kids inheritance on income and business relief during covid. Too bad it favors the rich people more than the poor. Good luck with making compromises if they don’t get the senate. Yeah Joe’s past had him making deals but the current Republican Party is a new animal. I sure hope I’m wrong.

    • I understand that you can't accept what I'm saying and your reality is firmly rooted in your understanding of a few vague policy positions and what you hope to be true despite the contrary evidence.

      You can't explain why AOC and Sanders insist on self identifying as socialists, so you simply dismiss it because tactically at least in the short term they aren't introducing bills nationalizing industry or fixing prices. Oh wait... AOC did exactly that for the banking industry, the healthcare industry, the energy industry, the transportation industry, the farming industry, the housing industry.

      Of course, she couches it as "appropriate ownership stake" for the Government so you can rationalize that she doesn't really mean what she says.

      And if that isn't enough:

      "I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries," Sen. Sanders told the Burlington Free Press in 1976, according to CNN. "We need public control over capital; and the capital must be put to use for public need, not for the advancement of those who made the investments."

    • Yes, the current republican party is a new animal. Perhaps it is naive to hope for compromise. But against all odds, I hope. But still will work to defeat republican candidates in coming elections. And yes, Mitch McConnell is evil incarnate.

    • I have been resentful of McConnell, too. Decided to check out if he and Biden have ever worked together. Apparently, they did a lot together while Biden was VP. McConnell even attended Beau Biden’s funeral as a family friend. Maybe we’ll see some softening of the partisanship if we can just keep the rabid partisans out of it and let these two old stalwarts work things out.

    • McConnell is the person who refused to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing 237 days before the election, and then pushed Trump's pick through just days before this election. How much more rabidly partisan can you get?

    • Completely agree with you. Completely agree. I’m not going to argue for MM or for the slimey Repubs wrt that shameful, shameful act. Absolutely dispicable. And in doing that, the Repubs basically trashed the respectability of the Court as well as their own Party and ratcheted up the partisanship 100 fold.

      We have to get past this hatred, though. The frenzy we are about to witness in GA is going to continue to fuel the hatred, unfortunately. But maybe, just maybe having such a close balance in both houses of Congress — *maybe* that will force (?) release (?) allow (?) some legislators to look at issues from a citizen’s perspective rather than always a party’s perspective. Like when John McCain marched into the chambers and voted for healthcare. Maybe we’ll get more of that kind of *humane* legislation when the balance of power is so precarious.

      One can dream...

    • I don't understand the election fraud claims the President, Lindsey Graham and Rudy Giuliani are pursuing. They are not disputing the results of the House and Senate, but aren't those on the same ballots?

      I guess that's why Republicans are basically saying about Trump, "I don't really know the guy. Had a picture taken with him. Heard he's a nice guy."

    • Another reason that the fraud charge seems ludicrous is how close the election came to going the other way. If there had been fraud, the perpetrators would have been unlikely to cut it so close.

    • You're not the only one. I read this article a few days ago by someone that has studied election fraud around the world and he said pretty much exactly what you're saying.

      The Trumpian logic doesn’t even make sense. So the Democrats are stealing an election in Georgia, a place where Republicans control just about everything? So the Democrats somehow rigged the election but decided not to win the Senate, nor to win in several battleground states where they were favored in the polls? (And they apparently managed to throw in a couple of devastating losses of key House seats for good measure.) It’s absurd.

      The best way to understand Trump’s increasingly deranged authoritarian rhetoric, then, is not to fixate on the evidence. The evidence doesn’t exist, but that isn’t even the point. This isn’t about winning in court. It’s a political strategy that seeks to cast doubt on an election that Trump has lost. That strategy relies on insinuation, conspiratorial thinking and spreading the false belief that something is up.

    • This is a common tactic of Trump. He makes baseless claims, and leaves it to his acolytes to justify the claims. He wants litigation, and so makes baseless claims that don't need to make sense at all and doesn't require any evidence. His lawyers will litigate whatever they may be able to find (or nothing) and regardless will be used to claim Trump was right all along.

      I assume he actually believes that, given judges he appointed, they will overturn the elections in multiple States and give them to him if only a case is put in front of them no matter how frivolous and senseless.

    • It's really a frightening thought! How long do you guys think it will take before Republican Senators stand up to him on this? So far only Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and Susan Collins have acknowledged the results of the election.