There is no "Democrat Party"
- Thread starter pecksniff
- Start date
You only call that because it's more facile to write "Democrat" than "Democratic."
Then that is what makes you an idiot. Likewise with "Demonrats" or variations thereon. ("Rethuglican," "Repugnican," etc., are not really any better or smarter. "Pub" and "Dem" are simply neutral shorthand.)
Last edited:
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Which makes childish little you wet your pants in glee? I'm not a bit surprised.
They repeat Rush Dimbaughs use of the word...sheeple!
LOL. Pot, meet Kettle.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,680
Calling the Democrat Party democratic is simply a gratuitous inaccuracy that fails to define the blatant totalitarianism the party stands for.
Okay, that's . . . totally dumb.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,680
To the propagandists maybe. There are no traditional "democrats", the party has morphed into the New Communist Party. There is no denying that Socialism is the root principle in the Democrat Party, and the unspoken totalitarianism required to institute it, is winked at by "Democrats."
That is completely insane. Not even such a moderate nonsocialist socialist as Sanders can win a leadership role under the party's present composition, it's all DLC neoliberal DINOs like Clinton, Obama and Biden. It was not communist or socialist thinking behind NAFTA or the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty or the Affordable Care Act. The party is not even totalitarian enough to discipline its own membership. The GOP can do that to some limited degree, but the Dems are a coalition of interest groups.
Last edited:
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,680
This proves you're completely insane. Bernie is a communist pretending to be a Democrat. Your naivete knows no bounds.
No, Bernie is a social democrat pretending to be a socialist. As for the Communists, they're somewhere way off there out of earshot. When was the last time you even saw a May Day parade?
And, no, BLM are not Communists. Neither are Antifa, although their tradition certainly does have Communist roots.
Last edited:
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,680
BS. He spent his honeymoon in the old Soviet Union. He visited and promoted the Castro brothers, he promoted the Ortega brothers, the Sandinistas. His commie credentials are legend.
His credentials are not his politics. He's a social democrat. He's not about to lead a proletarian revolution or nationalize the means of production. There was nothing like that in his platform. And not even he gets to lead the Dems. That's how Communist they are.
Tigersman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Posts
- 4,541
Republicans are the snowflakes. They had two changes to get rid of the worse president the U.S. has ever had but what do they do, kiss his ass. Now they must continue to kiss his ass or risk is wrath.
That's just the name of the Minnesota Dems, really; a historical artifact of a merger with the old Farmer-Laborer Party.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,680
He's a Commie elitist.
I would call that a contradiction in terms if the history of Communism were not full of unmistakable examples.
But, that's just what it is, the history of Communism. To speak of it as if it were still a dynamic force in the world shows detachment from reality, perhaps even a tinge of nostalgia. None of the remaining Communist states have any interest, any more, in stirring up revolution in other countries, and in all other countries, Communism no longer matters as a political force. Certainly it is not a force in the Dem coalition -- it never was, not even in the 1930s when American Communism was at its peak as an organized movement. And non-Communist Socialism never fared much better. A good source here is It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, by Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks.
Last edited:
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,680
There have always been a social elite in Communist societies. There is a social elite in China, in North Korea, Cuba, and in the old Soviet Union. All have and had benefits and luxuries separate and apart from their people. There hasn't been a Communist society yet that was truly classless.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,680
^^^
This isn't true.
You forget the biggest country on Earth, Communist China. China is all about revolution in other countries and is all about spreading it's absolute totalitarianism worldwide.
I know, I know. The difference is, in a Communist state, the social elite are high party officials and their families. Toward the end of the USSR, that elite showed signs of evolving into a hereditary class, and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is happening in China now. I recall Orwell accusing leftists of his time of dreaming of a revolution after which "the working class would remain in their place, but the intellectuals would at long last get their hand on the whip." That was the basic theme of Animal Farm. (Nineteen-Eighty Four was a bit more complicated.)
There was a Soviet-era joke: Brezhnev shows his luxurious apartment and limo and stuff off to his mother, who says, "But, Leonid, what will you do if the Reds come back?!"
And another:
Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev are riding the train to Communism, and it breaks down. They get out to inspect the locomotive.
LENIN: All right, comrades! Let's roll up our sleeves and push, and maybe we can get it started again!
STALIN: I have a better idea. Let's go back to the station, shoot everybody who built this train, assemble a new crew, build a new train and start over.
KHRUSHCHEV: We're in no hurry. Why don't we just walk?
BREZHNEV: That's a long walk. Let's get back on board, draw the curtains, and pretend we're moving.
Last edited:
