Right Wing Site To GOP: Confirm Garland Before Hillary Makes It Worse

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, Azor Ahai said:

I thought Hillary and Obama were  in the centrist wing of the democratic party. Aren't they "new democrats" ? 

American politics are so confusing jesus...

Bill Clinton was, not Hillary.

Even then if you want to lump her along with them, they are fiscally conservative but liberal in almost any other field. It still doesn't make them moderates. Liberal centrists are still moderate liberals.

Hillary's policies actually alarm the New Democrats. 

And yes. American politics is confusing. It took me a while to integrate.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

28 minutes ago, Himeros26 said:

Still referring to Bernie as a socialist?

*yawn* 

He refers to himself as that, no matter what adatage he puts before it hunty!  

 

[Himeros26 1,688]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

He refers to himself as that, no matter what adatage he puts before it hunty!  

There's still a difference. Hunty. 

And the last time we had socialism in the oval office, the rules had to be rewritten because the people loved him so much

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

2 minutes ago, Himeros26 said:

There's still a difference. Hunty. 

And the last time we had socialism in the oval office, the rules had to be rewritten because the people loved him so much

Who!???

 

[venusfly 17,885]

32 minutes ago, Himeros26 said:

Still referring to Bernie as a socialist?

*yawn* 

But... he is one...

[FATCAT 60,977]

6 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Who!???

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

 

There has never been a socialist president.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

He wasn't socialist...

He sure wasn't...  Smh

 

[FATCAT 60,977]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

There has never been a socialist president.

Of course not, but his principles were easily democratic socialism. Social Security, his installation, is a socialist program.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Of course not, but his principles were easily democratic socialism. Social Security, his installation, is a socialist program.

Ok. Fair enough. Most liberals including Hillary fall under democratic socialists though if you wanted to define that as socialist. Liberalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. In fact very often they are quite connected. Liberalism serves to bridge the gap between democracy and socialism in order to help society while retaining the freedoms of democracy.

[Morphine Prince 109,998]

51 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Of course not, but his principles were easily democratic socialism. Social Security, his installation, is a socialist program.

And they loved him. 

But anything related to socialism i n the US is demonized. 

[FATCAT 60,977]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

And they loved him. 

But anything related to socialism i n the US is demonized. 

Yep. It's funny, most of the republican parties supporters want to keep social security, but their leaders want to end it

[rpggal 332]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

Ok. Fair enough. Most liberals including Hillary fall under democratic socialists though if you wanted to define that as socialist. Liberalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. In fact very often they are quite connected. Liberalism serves to bridge the gap between democracy and socialism in order to help society while retaining the freedoms of democracy.

That's not the relationship between the two at all. Liberalism is policy on both social freedoms and economics, socialism is just economic policy (and by the way, it's the economic policy of liberalism). Neither is a form of government and as such there is no need to "bridge the gap," between democracy and socialism any more than there is to "bridge the gap" between democracy and liberalism, or democracy and conservativism. We can democratically elect those who would legislate socialist policies (like Bernie). The US is currently a social democracy, ever since FDR  (yes he WAS a socialist). Public schools, roads, social security, medicare, welfare, etc. are all socialism in action. You seem to be confusing socialism with communism, which is a form of government, and is completely different from socialism. Regarding liberalism, Hillary may be the 11th most liberal senator, but that does not make her a liberal. We do not have a major liberal/progressive party in the US, and therefore would not expect there to be liberal senators in office. The Democratic party is a moderate party that is strongly pro-capitalism, anti-socialism, pro-corporatism, and the Republican party is the party of religious Christian extremism plus extremism (rather than moderation) on the aforementioned policies. Compared to the rest of the western world, our "liberal" party is a joke. Within the full spectrum or right and left from fascism to communism, the US Democratic party falls to the right of middle (i.e. not liberal), and Hillary falls to the middle of that (i.e. not liberal). Bernie falls very far left of the US Democratic party (which is why he was an independent), into the left of middle of the spectrum. He is the only candidate left of middle, and therefore the only liberal candidate.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, rpggal said:

Neither is a form of government and as such there is no need to "bridge the gap," between democracy and socialism any more than there is to "bridge the gap" between democracy and liberalism, or democracy and conservativism. s the only candidate left of middle, and therefore the only liberal candidate.

Technically true, but socialism affects all aspects of society not just the economic ones

You said it yourself though. Liberalism deals with economics as does socialism. Bridging them is providing a compromise with democracy.

[rpggal 332]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Technically true, but socialism affects all aspects of society not just the economic ones.

Socialism is a form of government, like democracy or communism.

No, it isn't. Socialism has no rules dictating who makes laws and how laws are interpreted and enforced (i.e. a system of governance).