AOC Hit List!

[OldCoyote]

news.yahoo.com/aoc-threatens-put-moderate-dems-133644548.html

Is this the new face of the Demo Party??

Yes, I am all for her, Go Girl,Go!!!!

[mroped]

It is surprising of how much power she has considering that she just got there. 
I don’t agree with some of the things that she is after but I don’t have to. I didn’t vote for her and she doesn’t represent my district anyway. The only way I could vote for her is when she’s turning 35!
The article is somewhat showing that the Democratic Party still has moderates unlike the republicans and they are willing to work across the party lines.
You don’t hear thta much coming from the republicans. They are all bundled and intertwined in a complete clusterfuck around Trump’s rear end waiting for a turn to deposit the proper kiss.
Now, back to our sheep, she can put them on any list she wants, her voters won’t be the ones voting for this people.

[Great]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the meeting by chastising the two dozen moderates who voted on Tuesday in favor of a Republican amendment to a gun control bill that requires gun retailers to report illegal immigrants who attempt to buy a gun

.

above quote from the OP article.

A hit list against moderate Dems that support reporting illegals who attempt buying a gun?  Why on earth would illegals be exempt from background checks and arrest by ICE and deported.

[andi9899]

I must say that while she's new and still rather green, I really like AOC. I'm interested to see how she does and would definitely consider voting for her in the future.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2019 9:41:49 GMT -5 Great said:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the meeting by chastising the two dozen moderates who voted on Tuesday in favor of a Republican amendment to a gun control bill that requires gun retailers to report illegal immigrants who attempt to buy a gun

.

above quote from the OP article.

A hit list against moderate Dems that support reporting illegals who attempt buying a gun?  Why on earth would illegals be exempt from background checks and arrest by ICE and deported.

I think Pelosi is jealous of the Trump ass kissing, and is attempting to line up a bit of her own.  

Unfortunately for her, those moderates don't come from true blue states and they have their re-election to think about.

You know, that voting for what their constituents would want thing type of thing.

[andi9899]

Pelosi doesn't really strike me as someone who cares for ass kissing, receiving or giving. She strikes me as a bull in a china shop, kicking ass and taking names. I think AOC can learn a lot from her. She may catch some flack from those who don't agree with her, but she doesn't really seem to GAF.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2019 10:52:53 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

Pelosi doesn't really strike me as someone who cares for ass kissing, receiving or giving. She strikes me as a bull in a china shop, kicking ass and taking names. I think AOC can learn a lot from her. She may catch some flack from those who don't agree with her, but she doesn't really seem to GAF.

The ass missing was a metaphor for toeing the national party line.

As it was used for Trump.

[Great]

The Progressive bar tender from NY, AOC, demands and threatens moderate Democrats, making a list ...

If you don't believe like me.... YOU ARE WRONG!
Everyone has to think alike! We do not allow diversity of thought.
Shame on you for thinking differently, you are now on MY list!

TG the 26 moderate Dems still have an ability to think on their own and as their constituents wanted.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Am I the only one that likes the range of thoughts and ideas in the democratic congress members? I like dissension and open dialog. I'm kinda glad pelosi and AOC are at odds. There is a lot to talk about!

I'm not sure why everyone wants them in lock step - we need some brainstorming and hopefully a little synergy not some bland, make-sure-no-one-hates-it-but-does-nothing policy perspectives.

In a similar vein, I also don't like the suggestions that have been made that we shouldn't really discuss our potential 2020 candidates in depth, should not talk about our personal deal-breakers with them because somehow that will lead to trump getting a second term.

I reject that entirely. I want to make sure the 2020 candidate is someone I can really get behind. And so I am going to discuss my deal breakers openly and thoroughly before we get the primary.

Unfortunately, AOC is not an option yet. I look forward to when she is. She is much more socialist than what I have considered in the past - but I am interested to see what happens with her current proposals, where she may go and how she develops as a statesperson.

Makes me think of a larger issue that I think will do as a separate thread.

[kadee79]

And the centralists are hitting back.

A comment from freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a leading face of the party’s liberal wing, pushed a growing debate between liberal and centrist Democrats into the spotlight this week.

From the halls of Congress to the presidential campaign trail, Democratic moderates are beginning to push back against the wave of liberal energy and shoot-the-moon policy ideas that have captured the party’s imagination over the last two months.

They worry that the sweeping proposals and hardball tactics of liberal firebrands could alienate centrist voters in the 2020 election, even as they hold out hope that Democratic primary voters, focused on defeating President Trump, will check the party’s move to the left. 
The moderates’ concerns came to a head this week when one of the newest Democratic stars appeared to threaten her colleagues if they did not toe the liberal line, raising the specter of a cleave in the party between moderates and purists similar to a long-standing divide in the Republican Party.


At a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said some of her colleagues could find themselves “on a list” of primary election targets, after they voted for a Republican amendment requiring that undocumented immigrants who try to buy guns be reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to people in the room who were not authorized to comment publicly.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a co-chairman of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said he has confronted party leaders about such threats, which have also come from the Justice Democrats, a liberal group that backed Ocasio-Cortez’s primary campaign.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/centrist-democrats-push-back-against-partys-liberal-surge/ar-BBUgNNC?li=BBnb7Kz

I think AOC has a lot of learning to do yet....and growing.  And a lot can happen between now & 2020 so she needs to keep things more real...like in REAL time, not what may or may not happen in the future.  Also, she's going to need to be running her own campaign comin up to the 2020 election...how much time will that leave for travel?  Since there are some very angry people that Amazon pulled out of the NY deal...I'm betting she will have some opposition in 2020!

[Rukh O'Rorke]

I hope they do not follow in the footsteps of the tea party in terms of tactics.

[dondub]

Not to impugn any bartenders but I just think progressive congresswoman would be a ‘great’ label for her.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 2, 2019 14:21:42 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

I hope they do not follow in the footsteps of the tea party in terms of tactics.

Socialist Tea Party, Nice ring to it!!

[weltschmerz]

Mar 2, 2019 20:29:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Mar 2, 2019 14:21:42 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

I hope they do not follow in the footsteps of the tea party in terms of tactics.

Socialist Tea Party, Nice ring to it!!

You have no idea what "socialism" really is, do you?

[mroped]

Mar 2, 2019 23:18:20 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 2, 2019 20:29:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Socialist Tea Party, Nice ring to it!!

You have no idea what "socialism" really is, do you?

And many fear it because they do not understand it!
As soon as “socialism” is mentioned most of them go straight to “they’ll take my guns away, tax everything at 70%, might be picked up in the middle of the night and sent to Alaska forcefully” and scenarios of that nature.

[Great]

Mar 3, 2019 9:33:33 GMT -5 mroped said:

Mar 2, 2019 23:18:20 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

You have no idea what "socialism" really is, do you?

And many fear it because they do not understand it!
As soon as “socialism” is mentioned most of them go straight to “they’ll take my guns away, tax everything at 70%, might be picked up in the middle of the night and sent to Alaska forcefully” and scenarios of that nature.

and then there are those who clearly understand it, and still don't want it! 

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 2, 2019 13:51:38 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

I think AOC has a lot of learning to do yet....and growing.  And a lot can happen between now & 2020 so she needs to keep things more real...like in REAL time, not what may or may not happen in the future.

The words "real" and "AOC" should never appear in the same sentence.

Mar 2, 2019 11:26:53 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Am I the only one that likes the range of thoughts and ideas in the democratic congress members? I like dissension and open dialog. I'm kinda glad pelosi and AOC are at odds. There is a lot to talk about!

I'm not sure why everyone wants them in lock step - we need some brainstorming and hopefully a little synergy not some bland, make-sure-no-one-hates-it-but-does-nothing policy perspectives.

If it were any other republic, I'd say you had cause for optimism. Sharp ideological differences lead to party fissures and the formation of new electable parties.

In America's dysfunctional two-party system, and with AOC et al. so far off the reservation, a split-minded party is a disaster in waiting. If the left-left wing of the party doesn't come down to Earth (and I see nothing in their rhetoric or policy proposals thus far to suggest they will), the best you can hope for is a party split, a Republican win in 2020, and a decent shot at one of the post-split parties winning in 2024. Remember: these people believe Ms. Clinton lost in 2016 because she was too much of a centrist.

The worst that can happen is an irreversible hijacking of the Democratic Party by a zealous but truly unelectable left fringe, leaving the GOP as the only alternative into the indefinite future. America's sizeable (and growing) far left minority will feel increasingly frustrated, increasingly disenfranchised. Until... boom. America turns into the new southern Europe--with guns.

You possibly saw the WaPo op ed from the other day. That couldn't have been easy for a vehemently anti-Trump paper to publish, but Democratic backers are truly frightened of AOC et al. and the radical shift they represent. No doubt Mr. Bezos only signed off on the piece when he beheld the congresswoman reveling in killing off New York's biggest jobs deal in a decade (a decision Gov. Cuomo and the NY labour unions are begging Bezos to reconsider, incidentally). Not only is the movement a threat as an unelectable federal party, it's an existential threat the country if it ever becomes electable.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Mar 3, 2019 10:17:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 2, 2019 13:51:38 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

I think AOC has a lot of learning to do yet....and growing.  And a lot can happen between now & 2020 so she needs to keep things more real...like in REAL time, not what may or may not happen in the future.

The words "real" and "AOC" should never appear in the same sentence.

Mar 2, 2019 11:26:53 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Am I the only one that likes the range of thoughts and ideas in the democratic congress members? I like dissension and open dialog. I'm kinda glad pelosi and AOC are at odds. There is a lot to talk about!

I'm not sure why everyone wants them in lock step - we need some brainstorming and hopefully a little synergy not some bland, make-sure-no-one-hates-it-but-does-nothing policy perspectives.

If it were any other republic, I'd say you had cause for optimism. Sharp ideological differences lead to party fissures and the formation of new electable parties.

In America's dysfunctional two-party system, and with AOC et al. so far off the reservation, a split-minded party is a disaster in waiting. If the left-left wing of the party doesn't come down to Earth (and I see nothing in their rhetoric or policy proposals thus far to suggest they will), the best you can hope for is a party split, a Republican win in 2020, and a decent shot at one of the post-split parties winning in 2024. Remember: these people believe Ms. Clinton lost in 2016 because she was too much of a centrist.

The worst that can happen is an irreversible hijacking of the Democratic Party by a zealous but truly unelectable left fringe, leaving the GOP as the only alternative into the indefinite future. America's sizeable (and growing) far left minority will feel increasingly frustrated, increasingly disenfranchised. Until... boom. America turns into the new southern Europe--with guns.

You possibly saw the WaPo op ed from the other day. That couldn't have been easy for a vehemently anti-Trump paper to publish, but Democratic backers are truly frightened of AOC et al. and the radical shift they represent. No doubt Mr. Bezos only signed off on the piece when he beheld the congresswoman reveling in killing off New York's biggest jobs deal in a decade (a decision Gov. Cuomo and the NY labour unions are begging Bezos to reconsider, incidentally). Not only is the movement a threat as an unelectable federal party, it's an existential threat the country if it ever becomes electable.

It depends on what dimensions centrist is being applied to. Here, I will assume that you are referring to the economic aspects of the platform. Maybe economic and immigration issues, rather than a broader aspect of social issues, which the democrats I think are fairly cohesive on.

I'm not sure if I'm relatively unique in this, but prior to the current zeitgeist, I never had any really strong ideas on immigration. America has always been a dream for people seeking new chances and better futures, and I knew that people came in legally and illegally to try to make their dreams come true. Many illegals would come and go - working years under the table, ensuring a good life for their families back home, and leave when that was done. Others stayed, and tried to become legal. 

I remember when I was vacationing in new mexico, and I was talking with a mexican national about these kinds of things. this was in the 80's - pre-internet and you really didn't get exposed to a lot of different perspectives or even information without a lot of digging. Being from chicago, the immigration issues were a lot less salient and as a undergraduate psych student, it was all very interesting to me to find out why so many from mexico wanted to come to the us at least temporarily. Being niave, I said why didn't mexico apply for statehood with the US, and he said alot of mexicans would love to do that, and I really thought that was the best way forward.

I think today many mexicans would not want that, and many in the us would quake in their boots about the change in demographics that would mean for the country. 

But if so many mexicans would like to be us citizens, I kinda still like the idea! and the southern border of mexico is a lot smaller, so there's that!

But contrary to the rantings of the right, I've never been for open borders (maybe in some Utopian future!), I'm not bothered by either a lot of high-work-capacity, intellectual type immigrants coming for grad school nor low-work-capacity immigrants without much education coming for manual labor.

I do worry that the current rhetoric on this is damaging our relationship with Mexico and other central/south american countries.

In terms of economics, I suppose that I am a former centrist - maybe I am still a centrist but it is slipping fast.

I've really worked my way up through advanced education and hard work and I've been very proud of that. But after a professional career of 20 years, and a total working career of 35 years, the inequities and unfairness of the current system are inescapable to me.

There is nothing about capitalism that will ensure fairness in compensation. The specter of walmart - with billionaires at the top and a large work force dependent on public assistance for their meager existence is all we need to see. The free market works best for those who can take advantage of others in a less powerful position.

I want a society where hard work and talent still get you ahead, and middling work at least gets you a decent life where without food or shelter insecurity.

And where the less fortunate - whether due to lack of ability, mental or physical health challenges, or whatever, are not on the street losing limbs in a cold snap.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

and for the TL/DR on the above.

I can be or formerly was considered an economic centrist.

Capitalism is failing too many people in our society. Fix it or lose it.

I think I can be considered a mild success story considering neither of my parents got a college degree and worked predominately blue collar jobs throughout their lives and I am a well educated professional. 

I like what I've accomplished - but I'm neither blind to the inequities in society nor willing to put up with them.

Given the recalcitrant nature of conservative right now, I'm willing to go hard left. Not sure how others feel. I do tend to be more changeable than others and consider many things workable.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 3, 2019 11:08:54 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Mar 3, 2019 10:17:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The words "real" and "AOC" should never appear in the same sentence.

If it were any other republic, I'd say you had cause for optimism. Sharp ideological differences lead to party fissures and the formation of new electable parties.

In America's dysfunctional two-party system, and with AOC et al. so far off the reservation, a split-minded party is a disaster in waiting. If the left-left wing of the party doesn't come down to Earth (and I see nothing in their rhetoric or policy proposals thus far to suggest they will), the best you can hope for is a party split, a Republican win in 2020, and a decent shot at one of the post-split parties winning in 2024. Remember: these people believe Ms. Clinton lost in 2016 because she was too much of a centrist.

The worst that can happen is an irreversible hijacking of the Democratic Party by a zealous but truly unelectable left fringe, leaving the GOP as the only alternative into the indefinite future. America's sizeable (and growing) far left minority will feel increasingly frustrated, increasingly disenfranchised. Until... boom. America turns into the new southern Europe--with guns.

You possibly saw the WaPo op ed from the other day. That couldn't have been easy for a vehemently anti-Trump paper to publish, but Democratic backers are truly frightened of AOC et al. and the radical shift they represent. No doubt Mr. Bezos only signed off on the piece when he beheld the congresswoman reveling in killing off New York's biggest jobs deal in a decade (a decision Gov. Cuomo and the NY labour unions are begging Bezos to reconsider, incidentally). Not only is the movement a threat as an unelectable federal party, it's an existential threat the country if it ever becomes electable.

It depends on what dimensions centrist is being applied to. Here, I will assume that you are referring to the economic aspects of the platform. Maybe economic and immigration issues, rather than a broader aspect of social issues, which the democrats I think are fairly cohesive on.

I'm not sure if I'm relatively unique in this, but prior to the current zeitgeist, I never had any really strong ideas on immigration. America has always been a dream for people seeking new chances and better futures, and I knew that people came in legally and illegally to try to make their dreams come true. Many illegals would come and go - working years under the table, ensuring a good life for their families back home, and leave when that was done. Others stayed, and tried to become legal. 

I remember when I was vacationing in new mexico, and I was talking with a mexican national about these kinds of things. this was in the 80's - pre-internet and you really didn't get exposed to a lot of different perspectives or even information without a lot of digging. Being from chicago, the immigration issues were a lot less salient and as a undergraduate psych student, it was all very interesting to me to find out why so many from mexico wanted to come to the us at least temporarily. Being niave, I said why didn't mexico apply for statehood with the US, and he said alot of mexicans would love to do that, and I really thought that was the best way forward.

I think today many mexicans would not want that, and many in the us would quake in their boots about the change in demographics that would mean for the country. 

But if so many mexicans would like to be us citizens, I kinda still like the idea! and the southern border of mexico is a lot smaller, so there's that!

But contrary to the rantings of the right, I've never been for open borders (maybe in some Utopian future!), I'm not bothered by either a lot of high-work-capacity, intellectual type immigrants coming for grad school nor low-work-capacity immigrants without much education coming for manual labor.

I do worry that the current rhetoric on this is damaging our relationship with Mexico and other central/south american countries.

In terms of economics, I suppose that I am a former centrist - maybe I am still a centrist but it is slipping fast.

I've really worked my way up through advanced education and hard work and I've been very proud of that. But after a professional career of 20 years, and a total working career of 35 years, the inequities and unfairness of the current system are inescapable to me.

There is nothing about capitalism that will ensure fairness in compensation. The specter of walmart - with billionaires at the top and a large work force dependent on public assistance for their meager existence is all we need to see. The free market works best for those who can take advantage of others in a less powerful position.

I want a society where hard work and talent still get you ahead, and middling work at least gets you a decent life where without food or shelter insecurity.

And where the less fortunate - whether due to lack of ability, mental or physical health challenges, or whatever, are not on the street losing limbs in a cold snap.

You're more centrist than you think.

True, you're far left of someone like me, but I doubt you'd qualify as "far left" on key issues circa 2019. As you say, you believe borders should exist and be defended. This alone puts you at odd with the Democrats' new groove.

You probably aren't a fan of reparations for slavery, censorship of conservative views on social media platforms, blockades as a means to silence politicians and ideologues, legalization of infanticide, abolition of college fraternities, and the more radical proposals that fall under the rubric of "LGBT rights" and "minority rights".

You likely don't believe in 100% marginal tax rates, abolition of inheritance rights, free rides through post-secondary school, nationalization of pharmaceutical and tech businesses, and the striking down of flags, anthems, monuments, street names, etc. any vocal minority finds offensive.

I'm guessing you don't support repealing the 2nd Amendment, eliminating gender-specific terms in national documents, banning oil and gas development, or doubling of corporate tax rates.

If you have any financial or worldly sense at all, you'll want nothing to do with the "Green New Deal" (not the general ideal of being environmentally responsible, but the many specifics of the bill).

If I'm halfway right, you, my friend, are now solidly in the right wing of the new and improved Democratic Party, Est. 2017.

Frightening but... true.

[thyme4change]

Mar 3, 2019 10:17:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 2, 2019 13:51:38 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

I think AOC has a lot of learning to do yet....and growing.  And a lot can happen between now & 2020 so she needs to keep things more real...like in REAL time, not what may or may not happen in the future.

The words "real" and "AOC" should never appear in the same sentence.

Mar 2, 2019 11:26:53 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Am I the only one that likes the range of thoughts and ideas in the democratic congress members? I like dissension and open dialog. I'm kinda glad pelosi and AOC are at odds. There is a lot to talk about!

I'm not sure why everyone wants them in lock step - we need some brainstorming and hopefully a little synergy not some bland, make-sure-no-one-hates-it-but-does-nothing policy perspectives.

If it were any other republic, I'd say you had cause for optimism. Sharp ideological differences lead to party fissures and the formation of new electable parties.

In America's dysfunctional two-party system, and with AOC et al. so far off the reservation, a split-minded party is a disaster in waiting. If the left-left wing of the party doesn't come down to Earth (and I see nothing in their rhetoric or policy proposals thus far to suggest they will), the best you can hope for is a party split, a Republican win in 2020, and a decent shot at one of the post-split parties winning in 2024. Remember: these people believe Ms. Clinton lost in 2016 because she was too much of a centrist.

The worst that can happen is an irreversible hijacking of the Democratic Party by a zealous but truly unelectable left fringe, leaving the GOP as the only alternative into the indefinite future. America's sizeable (and growing) far left minority will feel increasingly frustrated, increasingly disenfranchised. Until... boom. America turns into the new southern Europe--with guns.

You possibly saw the WaPo op ed from the other day. That couldn't have been easy for a vehemently anti-Trump paper to publish, but Democratic backers are truly frightened of AOC et al. and the radical shift they represent. No doubt Mr. Bezos only signed off on the piece when he beheld the congresswoman reveling in killing off New York's biggest jobs deal in a decade (a decision Gov. Cuomo and the NY labour unions are begging Bezos to reconsider, incidentally). Not only is the movement a threat as an unelectable federal party, it's an existential threat the country if it ever becomes electable.

It could happen that way.

But, in my adult lifetime, i have watched the evangelicals take over the Republican party and abandon the more libertarian values of getting the government out of everything, and cutting spending. I can't decide how electable some of their people are. They have a solid strategy of Fox news spreading anger, gerrymandering and voter suppression that has really been working for them. Mitch stalling so many judiciary appointments has also given them the courts at every level for decades, so they won't be forced to change strategies any time soon. Now the Democrats are scrambling to figure out how to deal with it. Some believe that going very far left is the best way to combat the very far right. Others think occupying the middle will draw in the most people.

It will be interesting to watch, as the potential voter base will be increasingly disproportionately younger over the next few elections. Is that generation far left or middle? Will the aging Gen X move to the right to fill the void of dying boomers? Time will tell.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 3, 2019 9:47:20 GMT -5 Great said:

Mar 3, 2019 9:33:33 GMT -5 mroped said:

And many fear it because they do not understand it!
As soon as “socialism” is mentioned most of them go straight to “they’ll take my guns away, tax everything at 70%, might be picked up in the middle of the night and sent to Alaska forcefully” and scenarios of that nature.

and then there are those who clearly understand it, and still don't want it! 

Well, by all means, kindly list the democrats who want to get rid of all private businesses and turn them all over to the state.

[weltschmerz]

Here's how Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Democratic socialist, defined it in a 2006 interview: "I think [democratic socialism] means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest."

"I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly," Sanders added. "That's all it means."


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/heres-the-difference-between-a-socialist-and-a-democratic-socialist/ar-BBROPNr

[weltschmerz]

In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there was no motivation to excel. No motivation to provide a superior product. No motivation to provide good customer service. The government produced, owned and sold everything, from furniture to shoes to matches, all inferior quality. Matches that wouldn't light. Furniture that fell apart. Shoes that would disintegrate after a week.
Buy it or don't buy it....they didn't care. It's not like you can go to another store.

THAT, mes amis, is socialism.
Please provide a list of "socialist" democrats who are advocating for that kind of system.

[mroped]

“Capitalism is failing too many people in our society. Fix it or lose it.”

I don’t think is the system that failed the people but those that twist the meaning and purpose of it.
We use to have safeguards against monopoly and predatory practices but that was the time when unions were strong and worked FOR the people. Some unions still do but then are some that push the envelope. And many have been dissolved/lost membership numbers.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 3, 2019 15:52:29 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there was no motivation to excel. No motivation to provide a superior product. No motivation to provide good customer service. The government produced, owned and sold everything, from furniture to shoes to matches, all inferior quality. Matches that wouldn't light. Furniture that fell apart. Shoes that would disintegrate after a week.
Buy it or don't buy it....they didn't care. It's not like you can go to another store.

THAT, mes amis, is socialism.
Please provide a list of "socialist" democrats who are advocating for that kind of system.

Socialism is an extremum on a spectrum.

In casual discussion, "socialism" simply means "significantly closer to the socialism extremum than the status quo (or the comparative alternative)". It also commonly stands in for "statism" and "forcible redistribution of wealth (to individuals less deserving of it and less worthy of controlling it)", particularly among conservatives.

The prototypical anti-socialist stays awake at night worrying that 55% of his paycheque is going to the man who smokes pot for breakfast, drops by a "Ban Cows" sit-in for lunch, and attends a lecture for his completely unmarketable gender studies degree for dinner.

Incidentally, your description of the USSR is what opponents of universal healthcare in the US fear will happen if the US adopts a "single-payer" system. They're convinced the switch will erode the motivation to excel, leading to substandard care, undercompensated professionals, and a loss of the US's competitive edge in drugs and medical tech. "Use it or don't use it... we don't care. It's not like you can go to another store."

[phil5185]

"Capitalism is failing too many people in our society. Fix it or lose it.”

In the 1860s, the US connected the East/West with the railroad. Over the next 50 years we grew/mined raw materials to ship East - and manufactured goods were shipped West. 1000s of ton miles in just a few days, 10X or 100X cheaper/faster than by wagon. Learned to turn iron into steel, open up vast markets to the world.  Drilled oil wells, built roads, Made cars, airplanes, cut the cost of petroleum by 10X,  made electricity available everywhere. Land was available to all, if you needed a new place to grow on, simply move a couple miles away and homestead a new plot, no land constraints like those found in Europe.Two major elements to this great new freedom  were the invention of a Financial system  and Corporations.  The Monetary system standardized coinage and made it possible to do business form city to city, state to state. And corporations made it possible to organize large groups of people to focus on a single goal - and made it possible to organize large amounts of capital to facilitate common goals.   Corporations and capitalism is what made the US great, a civilization that had never been matched worldwide.

But some where in the most recent 75 years, capitalism and wealth became pejoratives. We started Medicare in 1965, welfare, section 8 housing, school lunches, and a completely jumbled mixture of social programs.  And with that we now have people who refuse to work, followed by a group who won't do dirty jobs cuz it's beneath them, yada.  In the 1930s, you took whatever job was offered - if you didn't know how to milk cows, you learned. Butcher hogs? You learned - you didn't draw a welfare check for 99 weeks while you waited for an 'easy' job.

""attends a lecture for his completely unmarketable gender studies degree for dinner."" 

"THAT, mes amis, is socialism.
Please provide a list of "socialist" democrats who are advocating for that kind of system."

List - I would start with Bernie and AOC. They probably don't  'advocate' that kind of system - they appear to be unaware that the 'free' things that they promote will ultimately morph into a dysfunctional helpless society - ie, Greece, Venezuela, USSR, etc. A good controlled experiment was East/West Germany- For 28 years the two groups, who had been raised together, schooled together, had the same genetic make-up, lived across the Wall from each other. After 28 years, the two groups were astonished  to learn how the other side lived.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 2, 2019 23:18:20 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 2, 2019 20:29:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Socialist Tea Party, Nice ring to it!!

You have no idea what "socialism" really is, do you?

Yes I do, Venezuela,, Works great until you run out of other peoples money!

[OldCoyote]

2012,  Venezuelan's lose the Right to own firearms!

2016, Venezuelan's learn to eat dog and cat to keep from starving!

2019, Venezuelan's are fired upon by their own soldiers to keep them from receiving Humanitarian Aid!

[dondub]

Try Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and skip Venezuela if
you want an honest discussion about democratic socialism
of the type Bernie seeks.