As stated before. Terms can be used by anyone to mean anything. The National Socialist party of Germany wasn't actually a socialist party, for instance. I don't think their stance represents people like Sanders or Ocasio, while the latter is in the group, there are power in numbers and it's better to be in a political group that shares SOME of your views than out on your own, no? For all we know she could become the leader of the DSA in 5-10 years time and change that little bit of it because she hasn't run on eliminating capitalism. According to their very own FAQ which you linked they do not advocate for government take over. This is why I kept linking that whole quote from the wiki, they are not for a central owned state planned economy. Also, the rest of the part you quote... Yes, they want more socialism, that shouldn't be a surprise to you. Conservatives want MORE Free Market and capitalism and everytime they get into power here they show that. The video you linked you have the guy basically saying the government exists to take things from you. So with that POV he basically wants pure capitalism and as much of it as possible. He's no different than the extreme other side of the coin and we know what happens when corporations get too big. I understand his conclusions based on that fact, I suppose. No prominent politician has even suggested taking over private industry. I'd be against any that would. I'm sure there have been fringe candidates that have lost elections, but to my knowledge (quote someone with an office to prove me wrong) no one has
Social Democrat was the name of the party he was a member of, but what you are quoting made it clear that he had Democratic Socialist views....the fact that the two are different is why it was important to mention that, you know Democratic Socialist views being completely different than Social Democrat views. There are some Democratic Socialists who masquerade as Social Democrats because they view it as a first step on the way to what they actually want, Socialism...but they aren't real Social Democrats. It's similar to people who really want a repeal of the 2nd amendment who pretend that the only thing they want is different bans and different barriers to people buying and owning guns. They know an outright repeal is a non-starter, so they hope to get there slowly over time.
Like she said, some people will focus on labels and not the actual issues. The congresswoman has been pretty clear on where she stands with issues. None, of her stances in any way destroy capitalism.
This is spin. It's clearly her long term goal to destroy capitalism....it's the goal of the organization she belongs to and she hasn't denounced it. It would be similar to how you have to assume that a member of the KKK is racist even if they don't specifically state that they are racist. If you are a card carrying member of that organization, it's fair to suggest that you share their goals....if you didn't, you wouldn't be a member. I mean, obviously she's not going to lead with her desire to destroy capitalism, because despite how far the left has moved left even some of you guys would push back on that...it's why they recognize that it is going to take a long time to accomplish their goal of the destruction of capitalism....but it's still their goal, they are still Socialist after all.
I'm focusing on their stated goals. Are you suggesting that you wouldn't think that proud KKK member was racist if they didn't flat out say it? Would you say that someone suggesting that they were was "focusing on labels"? I get that as someone from the fringe left you feel the need to go to bat for others on the fringe left, but you are doing a fairly poor job of it.
I will focus on the issues anyone in the KKK advocates just as I would on the goals that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has advocated.
I see no need to argue because we will never change each others minds. I will add that I fully support the Democrat party moving toward socialism. I highly encourage you and others to keep it up. The farther left you take the party the better as far as I am concerned.
That's quite the side step, why don't you try answering the question? If a person was a highly touted member of the KKK who openly and proudly admitted to being a member of that organization, would you assume that their ideals were aligned? Would you assume that they were racist....or would you assume that they weren't unless they outright said so? I know this is difficult for you given that it undermines your spin, but give honesty a chance.
The issue with this is this is exactly what you accuse liberals of doing when they say certain conservative candidates are racist. You take your side at complete face value and think Democrats like her want to secretly destroy capitalism... Also, the difference between the KKK and DSA.... KKK requires you to be a racist christian for membership. DSA requires you to be a socialist, it doesn't matter which form your socialism takes, just be one and go from there. Pretty much. We have to take people for their stances and not their labels. Labels, in the end, are irrelevant.
Again. I've been waiting this entire thread for ONE person to prove that any member of the Democratic party that has any power supports eliminating capitalism and have received nothing. I do think the more you guys throw around this word the less power it has. When you think everyone on the left are socialists then fine, that's what you will get. If Free Education and Healthcare makes someone a socialist, so be it. What does it matter? Obama wasn't accepted by the right, nor was any democratic president before and when the other side thinks the only acceptable democrat is basically a conservative with the 'Democrat' label then yeah...we won't ever agree on anything.
This line of thinking would be coherent if the conservative candidates who are baselessly accused of racism were members of racist organizations. For example, if a candidate were a proud member of the KKK, it would be perfectly reasonable to accuse that person of racism....the problem is that to the crazies on the left, they view membership in the GOP as the same thing.....and it's not. No, again, if we're talking about "my side", if a libertarian were a member of an organization that had certain objectives and they were proudly and openly a member of that organization, I would assume that they agreed with those objectives....no matter what they were. You don't become a card carrying member of an organization if you disagree with them. You don't have people advocating for the repeal of the 2nd amendment as NRA members. If you were following along, I never said the two organizations were similar, but they are both organizations with goals. As such, if someone was a proud member of either organization, it's fair to assume that they agree with the overall goals of the organization. Pretty easy to follow, I have faith in your ability to do so if you try. EXACTLY! It requires you to be a socialist and socialists want to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism! I knew you'd get it eventually. Social Democrats are NOT socialists because they are capitalists and they rely on the existence of capitalism to pay for the social programs they champion. That means that no real Social Democrat can be a Democratic Socialist.
If a person was a highly touted open member of the KKK but believed in Affirmative Action, upholding the Voting rights act, supporting immigrants, a universal healthcare plan, science, funding education, etc. then I would have no problem supporting them.
Well, I guess we won't be getting any truth from you today. Oh well, perhaps next time you'll give the truth a chance. LOL, no one is saying "everyone on the left are socialists", they are pointing to people who actually are socialists, who admit to being socialists, and saying that they are socialists.....and you are disagreeing.....because tribalism or something.
Well if you want to only accept the answer you believe I would say and not my actual answer, then you can have a conversation with the imaginary me that exists in your mind. Here is something that might help you with actual facts about Democratic socialists. http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6
The DSA is a big tent organization dude. You're not getting it. "The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a multi-tendency organization of democratic socialist, left-social democratic and labor-oriented members in the United States." Multi-tendency political organisations, especially left-wing groups, accommodate members who are affiliated or identify with different political ideologies, agendas, interests or perspectives. The word has been used to describe groupings of social democrats,[1] socialists, communists, environmentalists, human rights advocates, anti-war activists, LGBT rights activists, feminists, African-American activists,[2] anti-racist and anti-fascist activists as well as anarchists [3] who work together in support of a common cause. So, in short. You are wrong. Now I know you'll turn around, ignore definitions and then make your own...but for anyone that respects definitions and language they will come to the conclusion that Ocasio being in the DSA doesn't mean she wants to end capitalism. Hell, the site doesn't even explicitly state that is their goal, they said most of all they wanted to increase the responsibility of private businesses. And you don't even understand the objectives of the group though lol??? The goal of the DSA is not to end capitalism though. To clarify, I used the term Socialist in general. As in the OVERAL ideology of SOCIALISM. Not all Socialists are Stalinsts. But all the ideology I've explained here are all forms of Socialism.
I'm disagreeing because you keep implying that Bernie Sanders and Ocasio are Stalinists. They are not.
I would have a problem, FB. The beating heart of the KKK is racism. I don't care what an avid member of the KKK says, because racism is fundamental for that organization. trump and Bannon are perfect examples of far-right extremists who will say anything to anyone if they think it will advance their agenda. I know you were trying to make a point, but you went a "bridge too far," in my opinion.
The candidate would have to do more than just say they would support those principles. I'm not sure why a person who supported those positions would be allowed in the KKK or why the KKK would have them. It kind of reminds me of Supreme court Justice Hugo Black. He was in the KKK and appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. He ended up being a very liberal justice. From the bench, he supported civil rights.
