The Dems are not communists or dictatorship lovers

I'm no fan of many of the Dems initiatives, but that's just pure propaganda to suggest they are just like communists and dictators as I often hear from conservatives.  

 

For starters, NK and Cuba are dictatorships. China was a dictatorship as was the USSR. Now China is an oligarchy. They can call themselves "communists" until they're blue in the face. They're not and never were.


Communism is a pipe dream. But that's not the point. The point is, the 45 million people who call themselves Dems, are not like them at all. That's not to say what they want is a good idea. It's not, but trying to vilify them all into dictatorship loving murderers is absolute propaganda.

Comments

Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 8, 2018 - 12:03am
trying to vilify them all into dictatorship loving murderers is absolute propaganda 
 
Like the leftists trying to vilify all white males as gun loving murderers and rapists isn't absolute propaganda? 
 
OK then, off you go now, mind the gap between train and platform. BUH-Bye.
 
Stone-Eater Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:24am
As long as these stupid left/right games are played in the US, fueled by the media, the oligarchy can do its business because people are being occupied bashing each other but not THEM LOL
Dino Manalis Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:36am
 Democrats sometimes send the wrong message with their radicalism, they should always be patriotic; peace-loving; pro-family Americans.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:40am
Dave Green, you want to believe that people are naturally good, however; salvation theology presents the concept that we are sinners, not naturally good.  Back to the DIMMS and progressives which is the name they used but today those same people are named liberals and democratic socialist.  Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in the 1920s  started the process of as Obama said, "transform America."  We got the 16th and 17th Amendments, progressive income tax (right out of Communist Manifesto) and the end of Federalism with popular election of Senators.  Under Harding and Coolidge the other changes like Trump is doing were reversed.
 
This is what a member of the American Communist Party that left said.  "In his classic autobiography, Witness, he describes how this rebuff affected him:

And with astonishment I took my first hard look at the New Deal. . . . All the New Dealers I had known were Communists or near-Communists. None of them took the New Deal seriously as an end in itself. They regarded it as an instrument for gaining their own revolutionary ends. I myself thought of the New Deal as a reform movement that, in social and labor legislation, was belatedly bringing the United States abreast of Britain or Scandinavia.  What shocked Chambers was that he recognized for the first time that the New Deal was far more than a reform movement. It was “a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

This “revolution” was not taking the same form as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, but its effect was just as sinister:

It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time.

This shift was the revolution."   http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2010/05/22/whittaker-chambers-the-new-deal-as-revolution/
 
The outline for the revolution was presented by FDR in his 1944 State of the Unions.   There was never an intent to actually amend the Constitution to add FDR's 'Second Bill Of Rights.'   Obama I believe was trying to complete the last right listed: National Health Care.  And with the influx of illegal immigrants that would be made voters turn the nation into a single party nation.  Already the nation since FDR was close to one.  The DIMMS controlled at least one like the second half of Trumps term of the trifecta, for all but 8 yrs of the last ~ 87 yrs and the trifecta for 32 yrs. 
 
FDR used the Roman approach of controlling the mob with welfare.  And in the south segregation.  When that was lost LBJ doubled down on welfare saying that this will give us control of the niggers for the next 200 years.  (only due to the votes of the GOP ~97% resulted in the bills to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.)
opher goodwin Added Nov 8, 2018 - 9:18am
Thoroughly agree! However, in this post-truth era it is all about emotion and propaganda. It's tribal and demonization is the norm.
The President works on division and fear. His campaign was based on demonising a bunch of refugees that he made into an invasion horde of Muslim terrorists and Mexican gangsters.
He is being mimicked by his base. You see the result from Jeffry.
Somehow we have to all cool down and start seeing people as real people and not demonised stereotypes. We do not slot into boxes.
Stone-Eater Added Nov 8, 2018 - 10:14am
Oph
 
Jeffry sees it right. Why ? Simple. Because he looks from the OUTSIDE.
deleted Added Nov 8, 2018 - 1:14pm
While you are mostly correct in the present tense; the fact is that in time (that is the secret) ALL "Dems" WILL be socialists, then...... And it IS coming. It goes this way:
 
1. Democracy leads to
2. Socialism leads to
3. Communism leads to
4. Dictatorship.
 
There has never been an exception to this.
 
This is WHY our nation was NOT created as a "democracy" as most wrongly believe. Rather; it was created as a Constitutional Republic. This is where Republicans got their name.
 
Thus: our founding fathers would be aghast if they knew we turned this nation into a "Democracy". Jesus forbid.
 
For whatever it's worth.
Stone-Eater Added Nov 8, 2018 - 1:19pm
carl
 
No sweat. Let Jesus be your ruler (maybe a hologram will do), and then the fight against Mohammed makes more sense. Fuck political systems  ;-)
Susitna Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:53pm
You are right that to generalize is never right. But when I talk about the Dems I always talk about the Party. I often even say the former Democratic Party, because I am of the opinion that they are helping the communist agenda of the NWO. I can well imagine that many still believe in the Kennedy Democratic Party that doesn't exist anymore, unfortunately! I have met many nice Democrats who deeply love and that are very loyal to the party. They are passionate and still believe in the message of democracy, but this doesn't solve any problems nor the economy. What I have also noticed is that they believe in values that are not represented anymore by the actual politicians. The rejection towards conservative women is terrible and I often have to hide who I am. 
John Minehan Added Nov 8, 2018 - 7:24pm
It is not less than tragic that this needs to be said . .  . .
Gregory S. McNeill Added Nov 8, 2018 - 7:49pm
You are so correct Dave!
People need to stop listening to people like Trump and his ilk who love demonizing people. 
Lindsay Wheeler Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:17pm
The Demonrat party is the party of Marxists. What do you think the chant "Sexist, Bigot, Homophobe, Racist" is?  It is propaganda to ensure loyalty to the Marxist message of total equality. That is Marxist. To do away with the family is Marxist! To be for the worker over the bourgeois is Marxist. 
 
Here is an article for you by a traditional Catholic priest:
 
The Influence of Marxism in the United States Today
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.
 
His conclusion, America is a Marxist country. Most of Marx's 10 planks were implemented in 1913!  Anything that is progressive and Idealist is Marxist. Liberals and Marxists are about the same thing. 
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:43pm
Dave and Gregory, the Democrats demonize themselves at the Kavanaugh hearings, Rep. M. Waters calling endlessly for impeachment and investigating everything demonizes themselves.  I know you disagree but that is what the general public think and polls agree.   
 
You have to ignore Whittaker Chambers answering the question in the title. yes Democrats are socialist just as communism.   His testimony Aug. 3, 1948 House Un-American Activities Committee naming Alger Hiss as a member of the communist party.  The told HUAAC, "Every move against the Communists was felt by the liberals as a move against themselves. . . . The Communists were fully aware of their superior tactical position, and knew that they had only to shout their innocence and cry: “Witch hunt!” for the liberals to rally in all innocence to their defense." 

"Some things don’t change: we are still undergoing a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking, and we continue to hear the snarls of “witch hunt” whenever this revolution is challenged. What we need now is the same tenacity shown by Chambers. He completed his
“witness.” What will we do?"  Ref: the above source
Lindsay Wheeler Added Nov 8, 2018 - 10:15pm
"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." Vladimir Ilyich
Lenin

"Modern Socialism is inseperable from political democracy."
Elements of Socialism, (1912) pg 337.

"The view that democracy and Socialism are inwardly related
spread far and wide in the decades which preceded the
Bolshevist revolution. Many came to believe that democracy
and Socialism meant the same thing, and that democracy
without Socialism or Socialism without democracy would not
be possible." Socialism, Ludwig von Mises, pg 67.

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of
Marxism which without it would not be thinkable." Adolf
Hitler as a young man watching the Social Democracy marches
in Vienna. (Mein Kampf, pg 78. Manheim translation, Mariner
paperback)
 
 
Cullen Kehoe Added Nov 8, 2018 - 10:36pm
I agree with the post, but China IS politically ruled by a Communist party. (But they are economically capitalistic, just a different flavor since it's a 5 year planned economy.) 
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 8, 2018 - 11:29pm
Cullen K., China government is fully in control of the economy.  They understand that wealth is created by a free economy so they allow it to occur but the communist have put the free economy players on a very short leash.   It has chosen to follow the Fascist approach.  Sweden is also on that path.  Not the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and other collectivist nightmares that have collapsed or in virtual collapse.
 
This is what socialism, the approach that the Democratic party is leading the implementation of in America.  Sweden is a great example, further along in what I think is the typical cycle that China also is following. 
 
"In the century from 1850–1950, the population doubled and real Swedish incomes multiplied nearly tenfold. Despite the almost non-existence of a welfare state or any major state control of economic sectors, by 1950 Sweden was the fourth richest nation in the world. . . . 
Sweden into adopting socialist policies in the decades following its impressive growth. Over time, government spending more than doubled and taxes in certain sectors were doubled or even tripled. Despite these calamitous changes, by 1970, the OECD still ranked Sweden as the fourth richest nation in the world.  However, by 2000 Sweden sank to number fourteen. . . .  Sweden did not add one net private sector job. Nordic Socialism has frozen a once entrepreneurial and prosperous people in time. With few exceptions, Sweden’s large businesses have very little incentive to innovate (and they have not), and many enterprises now survive purely on government contracts whose value is impossible to ascertain without a system of free exchange to establish prices for goods and services.  . . .  
 
In recent years, Swedish lawmakers have begun slowly privatizing chunks of their socialized sectors such as healthcare, social security, and education. Last year, Reason magazine pointed out that private health insurance has exploded in a country where cancer patients may wait up to a year for treatment in the state-run system. This trend has grown. Sweden, furthermore, has begun outsourcing education to private providers and seen not only a reduction of costs but an increase in parent satisfaction and learning outcomes for graduates."    Ref: https://mises.org/print/36798
 
They have removed much of the burden placed on businesses and they are again incentive to innovate.
Stone-Eater Added Nov 9, 2018 - 7:21am
Thomas
 
Sweden once had a good balance of economy vs. social network. Now it has gone nuts with that PC shit. But that has noting to do with Marxism or socialism at all. It's the perverted and exaggerated "human rights" and PC shit that seems to put people into a fog.....and they don't even notice that "forced immigration" will turn out to be the opposite of what they wanted - a multiracial society living in harmony.
 
This IS possible ONLY when all the races concerned are born THERE and are not having a burden of culture, religion and customs from a former country.
 
But this would result in a society where there's no culture left at all - a uniform 1984 society where no IDENTITY is left.
 
But we can't stop that. In a world where travel and communications are so easy and affordable, there's no way back to isolation. The whole development was too fast. Humanity is not mentally ready to cope with that - only technology is....
opher goodwin Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:14am
Stone - you have identified the problem - the mass migration is taking place too quickly.
Multiculturalism should, and does, enrich a culture. When it takes place too quickly cultures form enclaves and integration does not occur.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:25am
Stone Eater economics has everything to do with economics.  Just read the Communist Manifesto and it is about economics.  
Don Allen Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:49am
Democracy is defeated by others using its laws to destroy it.
Socialism is defeated under the pressure of its internal corruption.
Communism is defeated by the very elite it creates.
Monarchy is defeated by political inbreeding and loss of vigilance.
Dictatorships are defeated by old age and weakened control.
 
Currently, most western governments are controlled by a combination of the above.  They may be defeated by a confusion of mission.
Koshersalaami Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:06am
I have never met a Democrat who is remotely interested in the abolition of private property, which is what communism is all about. The highest taxes on the wealthy that I know about were under Eisenhower. 
 
There is no major country actually practicing communism today. Totalitarianism, sure, but not communism. Russia hasn’t since the Soviet Union fell. China is highly corporate. Which also means there is no major country exporting revolution. Communism isn’t spreading any more because there’s no one significant trying to spread it. 
 
The most important thing about the New Deal is that it enabled millions of jobless people to eat. The second most important thing is that it enabled millions of formerly jobless people to buy stuff, which is kind of important to businesses during a Depression. Come up with all the conspiracy theories you want, the fact is that the New Deal helped the country. 
 
Socialism? The definition, to my knowledge, is government owning the means of production. I haven’t seen too much of that, even in the countries that called themselves Socialist in Western Europe. What I think most people here mean by it is more extensive care of the population by the government. But I don’t know of a dividing line at which point a government is considered Socialist. There may be aspects of that kind of socialism in one area or another but that doesn’t mean socialism is that government’s prevalent formula. 
 
So what do you mean? Do you mean that it is more important for billionaires to pay no inheritance taxes than it is to help poor Americans when they’re sick? For some of you, that’s exactly what you mean. What I don’t get is why. When you’re making decisions as to what’s good for your country, or when you’re making decisions as to what lines up best with your Christianity, why should the most important pricinciple always be unlimited property rights? That principle doesn’t even lead to maximizing the total value of American property.  Rich countries have thriving middle classes and wealth redistribution upward is damaging our middle class. Businesses need customers with money. That’s basic capitalism. But most of all, I don’t get why anyone thinks that protecting the untaxed inheritance of billionaires’ kids at the expense of the ability of poor people to eat and see a doctor is a moral imperative. Capitalism is an economic system, and if we use some of our resources to boost those at the bottom of the ladder, we still have a capitalist system. Which I’m in favor of; I’m in business.  What it isn’t is a religion. Treating it like one is kind of sick. 
Don Allen Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:21am
One problem with the ultra-rich, which have always been and always will be, is that now they want to be loved. They spend great sums on buying their version of being loved, often political.  This is but another consequence of the destruction of religion.

In short: If you have multiple billions, you want to be loved, and you want to be revered, you are one dangerous animal.
Koshersalaami Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:22am
I don’t know where the concept comes from - and I say this as someone who thinks communism is an impractical system that can’t possibly work because it kills incentives - that it is less of a sin to allow poor people to starve or get sick and die without care than it is to allow someone to freeload. I don’t know where that moral principle comes from but it isn’t from a Western religion, meaning that is antithetical to any religion that believes in God. 
 
 
Stone-Eater Added Nov 9, 2018 - 1:09pm
 
Thomas
 
economics has everything to do with economics. Just read the Communist Manifesto and it is about economics.
 
 
? Did you notice that societies in 2018 are not like societies in 1850 were ? So - next opinion please. Don't forget to brush the dust off.
goldminor Added Nov 12, 2018 - 10:43pm
The problem with the Democrat Party is the new far left management policies which have taken over the party. Imo, the moderate Democrats need to take back their party and stick to solving the nations needs instead of trying to change the social structure of the nation.