There is no "Democrat Party"

[pecksniff]

When you use "Democrat" where a grammatically better choice would be "Democratic," that means you are an idiot.

 

[Ramone45]

It's the Democrat Party.

 

[pecksniff]

It's the Democrat Party.

You only call that because it's more facile to write "Democrat" than "Democratic."

 

[Ramone45]

No, I do it because snowflake Democrats are offended by it.

 

[pecksniff]

No, I do it because snowflake Democrats are offended by it.

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.)

 

[KeithD]

No, I do it because snowflake Democrats are offended by it.

Which makes childish little you wet your pants in glee? I'm not a bit surprised.

 

[WillJ8787]

When you use "Democrat" where a grammatically better choice would be "Democratic," that means you are an idiot.

They repeat Rush Dimbaughs use of the word...sheeple!

 

[pecksniff]

Democrat Party:

The Democrat Party (AKA the Democrat Socialist Party, the Radical Liberal™ Party, or the Chinese Communist Socialist Deep-State Media BLM Antifa Party) is a political party that many Republicans seem to think is their primary opposition.[1]

Unlike the Democratic Party, the Democrat Party is made up entirely of Jewish, homosexual, communistic, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, Satan-worshiping, reptilian, Christ-hating Chinese spies intent on confiscating guns, destroying the family, indoctrinating schoolchildren into Marxism and homosexuality, painting every freeway lane with HOV diamonds, raising taxes to 100%, aborting every unborn fetus, and negotiating for snuggles with the leaders of the Axis of Evil.

Another important difference between the Democrat Party and the Democratic Party is that the "Democrat Party" does not exist.

The use of "Democrat Party" as an epithet by Republicans has arguably led to oversensitivity among some Democratic activists who think saying "Democrat activists" instead of "Democratic activists" is an intentional slur. Saying "Democrat politicians" and "Democrat-controlled legislature" and so on tends to raise hackles among some people these days. Although these are still incorrect, they are often said out of ignorance and not out of malice, sometimes even by Democratic members themselves. Hence it used religiously by Donald Trump and his apologists, such as Rush Limbaugh and substitutes.

 

[Ramone45]

Which makes childish little you wet your pants in glee? I'm not a bit surprised.

LOL. Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Rightguide]

When you use "Democrat" where a grammatically better choice would be "Democratic," that means you are an idiot.

Calling the Democrat Party democratic is simply a gratuitous inaccuracy that fails to define the blatant totalitarianism the party stands for.

 

[pecksniff]

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]

Okay, that's . . . totally dumb.

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."

 

[pecksniff]

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.

 

[Rightguide]

That is completely insane. Not even such a moderate nonsocialist socialist as Sanders .

This proves you're completely insane. Bernie is a communist pretending to be a Democrat. Your naivete knows no bounds.

 

[pecksniff]

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.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

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.

 

[pecksniff]

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]

No, I do it because snowflake Democrats are offended by it.

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.

 

[phrodeau]

I do enjoy hearing right-wingers claim that a city like Minneapolis is run by Democrats, when the party in power is actually the DFL Party.

 

[pecksniff]

I do enjoy hearing right-wingers claim that a city like Minneapolis is run by Democrats, when the party in power is actually the DFL Party.

That's just the name of the Minnesota Dems, really; a historical artifact of a merger with the old Farmer-Laborer Party.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

He's a Commie elitist.

 

[pecksniff]

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.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

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]

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.

^^^
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.

 

[pecksniff]

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.

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.