Subscribe
Notify of
55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Schultz can’t explain the difference because it doesn’t exist.

@another vet: exactly. Allowing bernie sanders who is socialist to speak at the democratic convention pretty much seals the deal.

Simple answer…..

A socialist is open about the idea of using government to take from earners to buy the votes of the economically illiterate, with open disdain towards the victims of their legally sanctioned theft.

A democrat lies about everything to reach the same goal, insisting they are only trying to be “fair”.

How about: JFK was a Democrat; Obama is a socialist.

I can’t tell the difference between my ass and her face. The voice has changed but the breath is the same.

It’s bad when you can’t answer a friendly question from Chris Matthews.

No difference. Both want something for nothing. Who the hell would sleep with thatÉ

Over the past century, the World has seen hundreds of various political parties pop up in as many countries, with at least half of them deliberately left of center. In any given country, there is likely to be found a “Socialist Party,” a “Social Democratic Party,” a “Liberal Democratic Party,” a “Labor Party” and a “Communist Party,” to name a few. While they all may share some decidedly anti-conservative views, they are not at all the same. Perhaps to the same conservative who thinks all Blacks look the same, all non-conservative political parties look the same, but that opinion reveals only ignorance of the enemy.

Oddly, politicians rarely rise from the ranks of political scientists – the very people who might have been able to answer the above question with some authority. The clowns who make their living duping an ignorant public out of their votes on election day have a host of “people-skills” and are frequently either particularly photogenic or are someone the majority of voters would feel comfortable sharing a few beers with, but they aren’t particularly smart. Neither is anyone on Flopping Aces who depends on one of them to explain the difference between two distinctly different political concepts.

Perhaps you’d be better served by focusing on the often-voiced observation that there is precious little difference between the established Republican and Democratic parties here in America. The similarities between the two are the consequence of political necessity, not the consequence of any fundamental similarity between the philosophies of the two parties, or of any particular connection between the Democratic Party and “socialist” philosophy.

@George Wells: The focus is that the head of the DNC cannot define the difference between the Democrat party and socialism. It’s as if the issue has never been considered before even though the accusation, accurate or now, has been made repeatedly.

Perhaps (shock alert) there is no difference.

@George Wells:

While they all may share some decidedly anti-conservative views, they are not at all the same. Perhaps to the same conservative who thinks all Blacks look the same, all non-conservative political parties look the same, but that opinion reveals only ignorance of the enemy.

Ironic how thou doth protest that you are conservative in all issues, but one, then refer to conservatives as “the enemy.” Unfortunately for you, you are not smart enough to keep your dishonesty from exposing itself.

Now, please tell me who has the opinion that all blacks look the same. Name someone who thinks that Oprah Winfrey looks like Allen West, that Larry Elder looks like Thomas Sowell, or that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. looks like Valerie Jarrett.

So while every one has a different visual appearance, perceived by the eye, the common factor in everyone of those black Americans is DNA. Just like the common factor in all those left wing political groups is DNA. Scratch the surface, get down to the core, they are now (compared to the past) one and the same.

Perhaps you’d be better served by focusing on the often-voiced observation that there is precious little difference between the established Republican and Democratic parties here in America.

Perhaps you’d be better served by reading the platforms of both parties. They are poles apart. While Democrats support the redistribution of wealth (Leninism), the killing of the unborn upon demand, larger and more intrusive government, less personal responsibility and freedom, the Republican Party denounces all those things.

You have shown, time and time again, that you are poorly informed. Stop embarrassing yourself.

#10:

“Perhaps to the same conservative who thinks all Blacks look the same, all non-conservative political parties look the same, but that opinion reveals only ignorance of the enemy.”

“Ironic how thou doth protest that you are conservative in all issues, but one, then refer to conservatives as “the enemy.”

Gee Wiz, Retire… how did you get that so confused?
My comment – the one YOU quoted – is clearly referring to the Democrats as “the enemy”.
Put on your glasses and read it again.

“Perhaps you’d be better served by focusing on the often-voiced observation that there is precious little difference between the established Republican and Democratic parties here in America.”

“Perhaps you’d be better served by reading the platforms of both parties… You have shown, time and time again, that you are poorly informed.”

Odd that you again require remedial education from me.
Here’s the rub, sweetheart:
OUR party – the GOP – is being torn apart by its own self-inflicted civil war, a civil war being waged by establishment republicans on one side ant the tea party republicans on the other. Both want control of the GOP, but neither can win a national election without the other. The Republican Party “Platform” isn’t what is going to win or lose the 2016 election. What matters is whether or not the GOP can sift through or shake out all of the clowns who are currently vying for the nomination before they succeed in mortally wounding the few viable contenders who are currently struggling to stay afloat.

I’m not making this stuff up, and you know it.
Here’s from your own – read it and weep:

“Viguerie says he is not surprised that members of the GOP leadership are courting union-backed groups while turning on the Tea Party.

“That’s who they are. They’re big government Republicans,” Viguerie told CNSNews.com. “They’re not misled, they’re not being deceived. They’re very comfortable being part of the ruling class, the big government wing of the Republican Party. There’s not that much difference ideologically between them and big government Democrats.”

@Bill #9:

“The focus is that the head of the DNC cannot define the difference between the Democrat party and socialism.”

Have you noticed that the Democratic Party puts its biggest loser in that position every time? Are you EVER surprised that the things coming out of that mouth are laughable?
I’m not sure what inside joke compels the Democrats to place one clown after another in that position, but it obviously doesn’t hurt that party’s ability to win presidential elections. You might also notice that Schultz doesn’t get any more respect from the Democrats than Priebus gets from the Republicans.

@George Wells:

Gee Wiz, Retire… how did you get that so confused?

Perhaps your poor English skills leads to interpretations of what you said being wrong. I suggest you make an attempt to be more concise. A English Composition course might help, although I doubt it.

OUR party – the GOP

Don’t try to kid anyone. You are NOT a Republican and admit that you consistently vote Democrats for only one reason.

They’re very comfortable being part of the ruling class, the big government wing of the Republican Party. There’s not that much difference ideologically between them and big government Democrats.”

Playing that subject shell game again, George? What was the topic? THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THE LACK OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT AND THE SOCIALIST PARTY.

And try to refrain from calling me “sweetheart.” I wouldn’t be your sweetheart for anything. I find you rather disgusting, and totally dishonest. Not to mention that you think by changing the subject, you offer rebuttal to what I said.

Have you always been such a failure?

@George Wells:

Have you noticed that the Democratic Party puts its biggest loser in that position every time?

No, I hadn’t noticed. They are all losers.

@Bill#14:

“They are all losers.”

So why are you letting them get you so worked up?

#13:

“Perhaps your poor English skills leads to interpretations of what you said being wrong.”

There was nothing wrong with my English – not the sentence structure, not the grammar, not the logic. What led you to “misinterpret” the meaning of my sentence was your apparent need to translate everything I write so that it fits your preconceived, bigoted beliefs.
The Republican’s “enemy” is clearly the Democrat – nothing could possibly be simpler or easier to understand. Your warped mind had to do logical somersaults to conclude otherwise.

But then, you couldn’t possibly just admit that you goofed, could you?
You had to get all up and nasty again, the only spin you ever deliver with consistency.

No, the subject was NOT whether or not there is a difference between Democrats and Socialists, it was that the DNC chairperson COULDN’T EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE.
If you had followed the thread instead of just sniffing around for a homosexual to character-assassinate, you might have noticed that I advised Flopping Aces readers that they should look elsewhere than to the DNC Chair for their evidently needed education on exactly what that difference is.
My advice stands.
Sweetheart.

@George Wells:

There was nothing wrong with my English – not the sentence structure, not the grammar, not the logic.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to, doesn’t make you right.

No, the subject was NOT whether or not there is a difference between Democrats and Socialists, it was that the DNC chairperson COULDN’T EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE.

Correct. Yet you wandered off in the weeds. Something you frequently do.

If you had followed the thread instead of just sniffing around for a homosexual to character-assassinate,

Sorry, but you pulled the trigger on your character long, long ago.

Georgie is simply trying to divert attention from the main issue, which is that the “Progressive” Democratic party of today has been taken over by socialist-fascist activists and a party elite oligarchy, Their end goal is clearly to crash the system of our Constitutional Republic, discard the Constitution (who’s Bill of Rights and “Sovereign States” protections they despise,) and transform this nation into a “Big Brother” style socialist State, via Central Federal government takeover of all powers.

While we can recognise that it is correct that they are being supported by Washington D.C. RINOs who are also “Progressives”, the agenda and desired outcome for the DNC is not the same as that of the RNC. Those false Republicans wish also to create a great oligarchy, but without the trappings and added expense of socialism. What I believe they intend, is a pseudo-capitalistic feudal system where all the wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of elite overlords. We can focus on the would be overlords of the corrupt establishment Republican elite in a seperate thread.

Neither outcome would be a good one for the people of this nation, and indeed we certainly should address the greedy elitist plans of both of the crony-class country clubs currently labeled the Democrat and Republican parties. But let us stick to the subject of the Democrat socialist-fascist cabal in this particular discussion thread, shall we?

Now then, the question lobbed at useful idiot Debbie is stunningly surprising in its frank openness by a card carrying member of the MSM. I am frankly surprised that it wasn’t edited out. This was a hand grenade that Cris Mathews nonchalantly pulled the pin on and dropped in Wasserman-Schultz’s lap. This is a question that should be tossed at every Democrat candidate, at every debate. Yes, it’s time they came out in the open.

@Ditto #18:

“We can focus on the would be overlords of the corrupt establishment Republican elite in a separate thread.”

Translated:
Let’s not be distracted from our blanket condemnation of Democrats by the fact that there is admittedly little difference between what they and the Establishment Republicans accomplish, and that the respective party “platforms” are nothing more than wish lists meant to encourage each party’s extremities to vote.
Translated:
Ditto is a Tea-Party enthusiast, but is apologetic about it, and would rather not be seen attacking those Establishment Republicans who still represent the only chance the GOP has of winning the White House in 2016.
What good is that?

The “sovereign states” principle you mention was a useful fragment of artistic invention employed by the framers to insure that reluctant states would go ahead and join the fledgling “union,” something that was not going to happen under a strictly federal constitution. It accomplished its purpose, but has long since outlived its usefulness.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly paid the principle of “sovereign states” lip service while just as often deciding cases against it. What that should tell you – and what the SCOTUS evidently appreciates – is that the principle is inconsistent with the Union’s continuity. It is a relic that reminds us of how weak our infant nation was, and nothing more.

“I am frankly surprised that it wasn’t edited out.”

How charming that you noticed that while Chris Matthews is decidedly progressive in his political leaning, he is comfortable pointing out Democrat’s faults. In spite of what you might believe, Democrats are no more mono-dimensional than their Republican counterparts.

#17:

(YAWN)

@George Wells:

Ditto is a Tea-Party enthusiast, but is apologetic about it,

While I doubt that you have the slightest clue about the TEA Party, and what it stands for, I find nothing in any of Ditto’s entries that says he is an enthusiast who is apologetic about being an enthusiast. Perhaps you would like to provide a quote of his that supports your claim?
Oh, that’s right; you only make accusations that you can’t back up.

and would rather not be seen attacking those Establishment Republicans who still represent the only chance the GOP has of winning the White House in 2016.

Huh? What? Did you even bother to read Ditto’s entry? Perhaps you should re-read it. And since you seem to think yourself the Sultan of Sound Bites, providing a quote from Richard Viguerie, how about this from the same source:

According to the chairman of ConservativeHQ, “we’ve had some good conservatives running for president, but quite frankly they weren’t going to be nominated, they weren’t going to be elected president, and the conservative movement is on fire with excitement because we finally got a top tier conservative candidate.”

“Maybe there’ll be others that will join, but right now, Ted Cruz has a base — the conservative movement — and nobody has united Ronald Reagan’s three legs of the stool: social issues, economic issues, and foreign policy in the way that Ted Cruz has,” he said.

Viguerie contends that there is a leadership vacuum in the country right now, and that “Republicans [will] get more of a backbone because the base will demand it with Ted Cruz articulating the issues.”

Like liberals/progressives, you seem to pick and choose the sound bites that don’t tell the whole story but do give an impression of what you are trying to convey.

The “sovereign states” principle you mention was a useful fragment of artistic invention employed by the framers to insure that reluctant states would go ahead and join the fledgling “union,” something that was not going to happen under a strictly federal constitution. It accomplished its purpose, but has long since outlived its usefulness.

THAT, George, is exactly the reason you are lying about being a GOPer. You are not. You are a left winger, and when you talk about someone being apologetic over their political view points, you must simply be looking in the mirror.

In case you haven’t noticed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly paid the principle of “sovereign states” lip service while just as often deciding cases against it. What that should tell you – and what the SCOTUS evidently appreciates – is that the principle is inconsistent with the Union’s continuity. It is a relic that reminds us of how weak our infant nation was, and nothing more.

Wrong. It simply means that we currently have a SCOTUS that gets it wrong. Just like they got Dred Scott wrong. But you are not smart enough to recognize that.

You’re a clueless useful idiot, George. You really have no idea and I think you basically post crap trying to appear intelligent. You have failed. Your knowledge of anything historical is an absolute crime. I would have thought that with such well to do parents, you would have been afforded a better education. But I guess that it is hard for you to understand historical perspectives when you view everything through the prism of one issue.

#21:

“The “sovereign states” principle you mention was a useful fragment of artistic invention employed by the framers to insure that reluctant states would go ahead and join the fledgling “union,” something that was not going to happen under a strictly federal constitution. It accomplished its purpose, but has long since outlived its usefulness.”

“THAT, George, is exactly the reason you are lying about being a GOPer. You are not.”

What?
Go back and look at some of the details of the Constitutional Convention… Look at what was decided… Look at all of the so-called “sovereign rights” that the founding fathers intentionally removed from those precious documents. The Constitutional Convention eliminated states’ rights to print their own money, and they forbade states from entering into treaties with foreign states. The founding fathers even added a “necessary and proper” clause to make sure that the federal government would always have an escape from state sovereignty.
Once the union was established, there was no turning back. At its best, “State Sovereignty” is no more than whatever the federal government chooses to allow the states to carry on with. This isn’t some “liberal” opinion. It is exactly what has happened over the past several centuries as our federal government has fine-tuned itself to the exclusion of state sovereignty rights. My feelings – or my political affiliation, for that matter – have nothing to do with it.

@George Wells:

The Constitutional Convention eliminated states’ rights to print their own money, and they forbade states from entering into treaties with foreign states. The founding fathers even added a “necessary and proper” clause to make sure that the federal government would always have an escape from state sovereignty.

The Constitution granted TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 18 enumerated rights. No more, no less. Because of those, like you, who seem to support an ever growing leviathan of federal government, doesn’t make it what the Founders intended.

Those rights, granted to the federal government, were simply an objective in cohesion. Like having one uniform system of coining money. Or one military that serves everyone in every state equally. One system of treaties, (that Obama has no problem violating) that would serve each state equally.

The Constitution is clear; only those 18 enumerated rights belong to the federal government. All others are the purview of the states, or the people.

Crikey, you’re so ill informed it’s almost sad.

#23:

Evidently, you are a constitutional originalist.
I’m not.
I don’t believe that men (not women, or blacks, or gays) who lived in the eighteenth century have a right to limit the rights that we afford ALL of our citizens in the more enlightened present, any more than I accept the archaic rules that were set down in scrolls thousands of years ago over in the Middle East.
The present belongs to the living, not the dead.
States’ rights have undergone a continual erosion ever since the idea of them was loosely incorporated in the Constitution.
States don’t “like” how the federal government is strong-arming them out of their sovereign prerogatives? They can secede from the union, right?
Oops!
We know how that goes, too, don’t we?

@George Wells:

I don’t believe that men (not women, or blacks, or gays) who lived in the eighteenth century have a right to limit the rights that we afford ALL of our citizens in the more enlightened present,

And of course, in your delusional state, you believe yourself to be more “enlightened” that the framers of the Constitution, right?

If we are so much more “enlightened” now that the 18th scholars were, how the hell did Obama get elected and how the hell did we get SCOTUS justices that don’t seem to understand the basics of our Constitution, ruling using foreign law and penumbras?

@George Wells:

So why are you letting them get you so worked up?

Because they are turning the entire nation into losers.

Perhaps Schultz can be excused for Matthews sneaking up on her with that question (not that the comparison of Democrats and socialists is new, but certainly she never expected such a question from sycophant Matthews), but then she is way-laid by the same question again!!

There IS no difference and “I know notttink!!” Schultz has no idea how to spin the fact.

#25:

“If we are so much more “enlightened” now that the 18th scholars were, how the hell did Obama get elected and how the hell did we get SCOTUS justices that don’t seem to understand the basics of our Constitution, ruling using foreign law and penumbras?”

For the same reason that we don’t stone our children for talking back to their parents, as was prescribed in the Old Testament.
The opinions of those long dead don’t necessarily trump the will of the living, regardless of whether or not those archaic opinions were good, or better than current ones. Successive generations get a shot at either improving the world or at making their own mistakes. Otherwise, “free will” becomes meaningless and the spirit of the population dies. Thank God there aren’t more “originalists” like Scalia and his Uncle Tom on the SCOTUS.

@George Wells:

When was stoning your children legal in the United States? Oh, wait, did you forget we are talking about the UNITED STATES AND ITS CONSTITUTION?

Scalia and his Uncle Tom on the SCOTUS.

Well thanks for letting us know that you are not only a queer, you’re a racist, as well.

Ignorant remark on your part.

One of the main differences between socialists and democrats is that democrats allow businesses to be own privately while socialists do not.
Both are for more and more governmental control of the private sector.
Dems seems to claim they will stop before total gov’t confiscation of the private sector, socialists do not make that claim.

#28:

“Scalia and his Uncle Tom on the SCOTUS.”

“Well thanks for letting us know that you are not only a queer, you’re a racist, as well.”

Scalia is an originalist. Right?
OK.
Thomas (Tom) votes in lock-step with Scalia. Right?
Well, it’s not exactly because both Tony and Tom have the same opinion on anything. Tom can’t even talk for himself. He’s nothing without Tony to point him in the right direction.

Get it? It’s as if Tony and Tom are related by blood. One is the bright one, and the other is… well… “special.” Antonin looks out for his Uncle Tom. (No, they’re not brothers. You can figure that out by checking to see if they both have the same last names.)
But how, exactly, do you figure this is racist?

Is it because the two severely originalist jurists on the SCOTUS are opposite – one is brilliant and the other is a complete dullard – and the brilliant one is also white while the other (the numb one) is Black? Uncle Tom is only severely originalist because Scalia tells him to be.

The fact that Uncle Tom is mute has nothing to do with his color.
Tom’s color is irrelevant. What matters is that he’s an idiot.

@George Wells:

Calling any black man an “Uncle Tom” is most certainly a racist term.

I’m through with you. I have no tolerance for racists. You should be banned from all polite society.

#31:

Since when have YOU ever been polite?

For someone so quick to call me a ”sodomite,” I find it curious that you so quickly cringe when someone calls a spade a spade.
Thomas is what he is. As a SCOTUS jurist, he’s be an embarrassment to ANY race. That’s not racist.

You’re a hoot.
A holier-than-thou bigot, and intolerant to boot.
Must be all that petrochemical pollution in your Texas water that makes you so… you.

@George Wells:

The glaring arrogance of the left with their “old dead men” argument regarding the Constitution, implying that human nature changes over time simply because technology has improved, is easily demolished by taking the time to read the Federalist Papers. Hence the leftist motivation to ignore the wisdom therein.

I find it curious that you so quickly cringe when someone calls a spade a spade.

Calling a black man a “spade” is just as racist as calling him an “Uncle Tom.”

Try going on a liberal website and calling Obama a spade, George. See how long it takes before your life is threatened. Liberals are nasty people. They will find you and hurt you.

The G-troll is trying to fire from the hip and has only managed to shoot himself in the ass. Anyone with a working brain who has read my writings on FA through the many years I’ve been here, can attest that I am anything but an apologist for the Republican party, and can additionally verify that I am quite outspoken in my opposition to the Progressive establishment Republicans and their RINO leadership that has infested the party hierarchy.

I’m not even going to bother addressing Georgie’s laughably idiotic, irrational and historically illiterate rantings. His whole goal is to change the subject away from that of the topic which is the DNC Chairman’s inability to answer a simple question: ‘What is the difference between socialists and the current (emphasis added) Democratic party.’

Nanny G gives a rather straightforward clinical answer, although it doesn’t reflect the Democratic party of today. Which, (under Obama and the rabidly far-left radicals,) has stepped away from Democracy into the dubious realm of socialist-fascism. That is why their wide-eyed leader was caught flatfooted, because she knows that the radicals who are currently calling the shots are demanding socialism. To deny that in order to keep the sheeple’s mask on, she would have to also deny to the rabid far-left radicals any intent to follow the socialist course they are demanding. Ergo, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz is caught between leading the wolf-pack, or removing the deteriorating matted and bloodied sheep’s clothing the Democratic Party has draped itself in since the Woodrow Wilson presidency.

#33:

Why is the “old dead men” argument valid in the case of Old Testament proscriptions but not valid for what the founding fathers wrote? Jefferson understood that this stuff would have to evolve over time, why is it so difficult for you to grasp?

#34:

“I find it curious that you so quickly cringe when someone calls a spade a spade.”

That’s what I said. I didn’t “call a Black man a spade.”
Wikipedia:
To “call a spade a spade” is a figure of speech which explicitly calls out something as it is, by its right name. The implication is not to lie about what something is and instead to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity or the unpleasant or embarrassing nature of the subject.[1]
Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1913) defines it as:
To be outspoken, blunt, even to the point of rudeness; to call things by their proper names without any “beating about the bush”.

I find it particularly amusing that you so quickly cry “racism” in this case while arguing against Mexicans looking for work in the land WE took from them, and while arguing in favor of restricting the voting rights of Blacks. Baffling that you don’t see the connection.

@George Wells:

That’s what I said. I didn’t “call a Black man a spade.”

Not only did you call a black man a “spade”, a generally disparaging term used to insult blacks, but you also called him “Uncle Tom”, another pejorative used toward black men.

You called Justice Thomas a “spade.”
Justice Thomas is a black man.
Therefore, you called a black man a spade.

And no amount of parsing words will alter that. And trying to weasel out of it by using a 1913 explanatory fails the sniff test.

I find it particularly amusing that you so quickly cry “racism” in this case while arguing against Mexicans looking for work in the land WE took from them, and while arguing in favor of restricting the voting rights of Blacks.

Once again you show you are bereft of historical facts. I suggest you do a little more research instead of showing yourself to be basically ignorant. And no one is in favor of restricting the voting rights of blacks. As you protest how you belong to the GOP (which would make you a Republican) the only talent you seem to have is spewing left wing talking points.

Racist, sodomite, liar, fabricator, historically bereft, your resume seems to be building.

#38:

“You called Justice Thomas a “spade.”

Please provide that quote.

Note that you didn’t bother to dispute any of my comments regarding Justice Thomas’s performance on the SCOTUS bench. He is what he is, and exactly as I said.
But REALLY!
Have you no sense of irony? Does it not occur to you that you are making the argument that my comments aren’t POLITICALLY CORRECT? Isn’t PC madness a disease that afflicts bleeding-heart liberals? Who have you been sleeping with, anyway?

@Ditto #35:

“I am anything but an apologist for the Republican party…”

NOT” a Republican apologist?
Then why excuse the rift between Establishment Republicans and Tea Party “Republicans” and place it off-limits to the discussion of differences between Democrats and socialists, when the obvious point is that NEITHER party is homogeneous. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

And your point that DWS won’t fall for Chris Matthew’s “Palin-Gotcha” question doesn’t prove anything more than that she doesn’t want to show favoritism for any of the current Democratic contenders for the nomination.

The GOP loses as many national elections as it does not because it offers inferior candidates, but because it makes no real attempt to understand the enemy. Keep believing that all Democrats want exactly the same thing, and history will repeat itself.

@George Wells:

Note that you didn’t bother to dispute any of my comments regarding Justice Thomas’s performance on the SCOTUS bench. He is what he is, and exactly as I said.

Justice Thomas is a conservative jurist. And because of that, you lob pejoratives at him such as “Uncle Tom” and “spade”. Now, if you think those are not considered pejoratives by the majority of black Americans, I will wait for you to post them on some liberal web site and let us see the reaction it elicits.

And your point that DWS won’t fall for Chris Matthew’s “Palin-Gotcha” question doesn’t prove anything more than that she doesn’t want to show favoritism for any of the current Democratic contenders for the nomination.

No, what it does show is that DWS is classic case of the stupidity of the left (what moron put her in charge of the DNC in the first place) and that she did not want to admit that the DNC is loaded to the gills with Socialists. Only Democrats know that the term Socialist is unacceptable in general society so they call themselves Progressives. There is no difference. The Democratic Progressive Caucus was started by a Socialist.

Who have you been sleeping with, anyway?

What do my sleeping habits have to do with your racist remarks?

#41:

“DWS is classic case of the stupidity of the left (what moron put her in charge of the DNC in the first place) and that she did not want to admit that the DNC is loaded to the gills with Socialists.”

Seems to me she was smart enough not to fall for Matthew’s gotcha-question, for whatever reason. She certainly wasn’t going to have the time to teach a lesson on political science, now was she? And she wasn’t about to shoot Sanders in the back simply because he identifies himself as a socialist.
Socialism is a dirty word to you, but Sander’s poll numbers suggest that it isn’t exactly poison to the legions of Americans who feel that the GOP’s take on “capitalism” has failed them. I’m not arguing that they are right, mind you. But Sander’s numbers – and the enthusiasm he generates – remind me of the numbers and the enthusiasm the “Tea Party” gets. Both groups are disenchanted with their respective “establishment” parties. Go figure…

“What do my sleeping habits have to do with your racist remarks?”

Well, now that you have come down with a nasty case of PC-loopia, it sort-of suggests you might have been at least doing some serious canoodling with an enemy combatant. Hippies catch this affliction from each other, a result of their uninhibited sexual practices. How’d YOU get it?

@George Wells:

Then why excuse the rift between Establishment Republicans and Tea Party “Republicans” and place it off-limits to the discussion of differences between Democrats and socialists

I excused nothing. The Republican rift is not relevant to the socialist “transformation” of the Democrat party which was the subject under discussion here until you came trolling along. I provided a link to an FA discussion on the Republican rift, which you are free to go to. I’ll note that to no surprise no one there is discussing the Marxist takeover of the Democratic party because it is a separate issue, yet Rich has already changed the subject there, which is so typical of the leftist trolls who infest this site. You are one of the worst at that resorting to that tactic.

You are blatantly transparent in your continued attempts to avoid the topic and change the subject. You protestations are not fooling anyone.

And your point that DWS won’t fall for Chris Matthew’s “Palin-Gotcha” question doesn’t prove anything more than that she doesn’t want to show favoritism for any of the current Democratic contenders for the nomination.

Nonsense. What you point to was a completely different question that she did answer rather lamely. When it came to Mathew’s question asking what the difference was between the Democratic party and socialists Debbie only evaded answering the question, just as you are doing here.

Keep believing that all Democrats want exactly the same thing, and history will repeat itself.

Put away your silly strawman. No one here said ‘all Democrats are socialists.’ what we said is that the party has been taken over by the far-left socialist movement. If you can’t understand the difference, then there is no help for your ignorance.

@Ditto #43:

The title of this thread was that “The DNC head “can’t” explain the difference between Democrats and Socialists” – itself a false statement. She REFUSED to answer the question… or did you miss that?
The better question – which you alluded to – was why DWS took exactly the same position – not answering Matthew’s question – THE SECOND TIME AROUND. You’d have to conclude that either she is brain-dead, or she has a REASON why she refuses to answer that question. While Retire05 ha decided that DWS is in fact brain-dead, I can see several rational explanations – and good ones – why she demurred. And I didn’t hijack tis thread. I rescued it from the oblivion it was destined to languish in as a result of starting out with a weak AND false premise. Don’t thank me. It was your cohorts who hijacked the thread, misconstruing the subject to be whether or not there IS a difference between Dems and Socialists, which was NOT the question. YOUR “trolls.”

“When it came to Mathew’s question asking what the difference was between the Democratic party and socialists…”

That wasn’t Matthew’s question. Why do you need to misstate it?
And Matthew’s question wasn’t what this thread was about. It was about DWS’s refusal to answer it.

@George Wells: @George Wells: DSWs refusal to answer.

Sometimes a non answer is louder than which an answer would be. Why would she so demur? And I guess everyone but you did miss her saying she refuses to answer and construed her non answer as cant answer. Did you hear her say I refuse to answer? I didn’t; we didn’t. She didn’t take no 5th. I would say you’re premising. While I’m at it no one is thanking you and you didn’t rescue shit. The better question is why she ‘refuses’ to answer a question as simple as what’s two plus two: the difference btwn socialist vs democrat anymore. The easy out is to call her a stupid bittie that won’t admit the truth. But we’re further down the rabbit hole where you have elucidations on rational explanations that I’d like to hear. Joke up son.

@George Wells:

She most expressly did not “refuse to answer the question” as you say she did, she instead tried to change the subject which is why Mathews put the question to her again and she continued to evade answering the question. It is not a complicated question nor does it require a complicated answer.

Let’s toss the hand grenade at you Georgie-Porgie. Let’s hear your answer, and while you’re try to answer some other actually related questions:

(1) What is the difference between the current socialist movement and today’s Democratic party?

(2) Why do you think it is that Debbie doesn’t want to answer the question Mathews asked?

(3) IF the Democratic party is not socialist, why is the Democrat party allowing a registered independent who is unabashedly and openly a declared socialist, run for the Democratic nomination?

(4) Why is this socialist rising in polls amongst Democrat voters while Hillary Clinton’s campaign is sinking?

(5) If you are the Republican you continually claim to be, why do you continually run interference for Democrats and try to snow us with the same pathetic tricks their trolls use?

You are coming across as a fraud and liar because of your own dissembling. Man-up and answer the above questions.

@Ditto #46:
1. If you are convinced that there is no difference between a Democrat and a Socialist, why ask the question? And above all, why ask ME – someone who you have already labeled a liar? Can you think of a more absurd exercise in futility? I can’t.

2. If I tell you I’m a Presbyterian, what would be the point of asking what the difference is between Presbyterians and Lutherans? Would you be attempting to convince me that I’m REALLY a Lutheran, in spite of my self-declaration to the contrary? If someone tells you that they’re an atheist, don’t you take their word for it?

3. You seem hung up on whether or not I have any Republican or conservative views. I’ve provided a whole grocery list of conservative issues I support, and I’ve come down so conservative on some of them that I make Retire05 look like a bleeding-heart liberal. I supported Obama, the ACLU and the HR Campaign strictly for their support of gay rights, and have made it clear that once the GOP drops its opposition to those rights, it gets my full support. Other than that, you might note that most of my posts encourage the GOP to do what I think it needs to do to win in 2016. Walker can, Trump can’t, Cruz can’t. Bush… ? The Democrats have a lousy field of candidates, and none of them have a prayer of winning unless Republicans give it away. Like if Trump gets the nomination, of if Trump DOESN’T get the nomination and then runs as an independent. 2016 is the GOP’s to lose.

4. Do you ever wonder what sort of booby-prize the DNC and RNC chairs really are? Are they given to folks whose names are so bizarre that they will never rise above the fray? “Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?” “Reince Priebus?” Clown names!

5. Chris Matthews’ question was artful. Not all art is meaningful. And not every question deserves to be answered – not by DWS, and not by me. DWS’s “answer” (or lack of one) wasn’t artful. But her response to Matthews’ question did not change a single vote or a single mind. Your obsession with it is illogical.

@Ditto:

Let’s examine George’s response to you:

1. If you are convinced that there is no difference between a Democrat and a Socialist, why ask the question? And above all, why ask ME – someone who you have already labeled a liar? Can you think of a more absurd exercise in futility? I can’t.

Obfuscation.

2. If I tell you I’m a Presbyterian, what would be the point of asking what the difference is between Presbyterians and Lutherans? Would you be attempting to convince me that I’m REALLY a Lutheran, in spite of my self-declaration to the contrary? If someone tells you that they’re an atheist, don’t you take their word for it?

More obfuscation. If one is a Presbyterian, and not a Lutheran, it should be safe to assume that they know the difference in doctrine and have chosen one over the other.

3. You seem hung up on whether or not I have any Republican or conservative views. I’ve provided a whole grocery list of conservative issues I support, and I’ve come down so conservative on some of them that I make Retire05 look like a bleeding-heart liberal

.

Of course, George did not specify what the differences between he and I were. I objected to his belief that illegals should be shot, and killed, when they cross our borders. And while George may profess to be a Republican because he holds certain fiscally conservative view points, he is a one issue voter who cares naught for anyone else’s issues.

4. Do you ever wonder what sort of booby-prize the DNC and RNC chairs really are? Are they given to folks whose names are so bizarre that they will never rise above the fray? “Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?” “Reince Priebus?” Clown names!

Idiotic blatherings. What difference does it make what a person’s name is? It is a moot point but then, that’s George. Always playing the subject shell game.

5. Chris Matthews’ question was artful. Not all art is meaningful. And not every question deserves to be answered – not by DWS, and not by me. DWS’s “answer” (or lack of one) wasn’t artful. But her response to Matthews’ question did not change a single vote or a single mind. Your obsession with it is illogical.

It was a straight forward question and deserved a straight forward answer. But DWS did not want to make that comparison, not even to a friendly interviewer.

Truth be known, there is little difference now between the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party. Just take a look at the members of Congress that are part of the Democratic Progressive Caucus, a caucus started by Socialist Bernie Sanders, who is no longer chair of that caucus. Raul Grijalva, another Socialist, is now chair. Just look at their website. Any group that uses “The People’s X, Y and Z” is a Socialist group.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/

Don’t be fooled by George’s lies. He is, through and through, a progressive liberal. His protestations only confirm that as he consistently defends the Democratic [Socialist] Party.

#48:

“2. If I tell you I’m a Presbyterian, what would be the point of asking what the difference is between Presbyterians and Lutherans? Would you be attempting to convince me that I’m REALLY a Lutheran, in spite of my self-declaration to the contrary? If someone tells you that they’re an atheist, don’t you take their word for it?”
“More obfuscation. If one is a Presbyterian, and not a Lutheran, it should be safe to assume that they know the difference in doctrine and have chosen one over the other.”

I’ll accept that.
(Not that there is “obfuscation” afoot, but your logic about knowing the difference.)
Now substitute the terms “Presbyterian” and “Lutheran” with the terms “Democrat” and “Socialist” and explain to me how it ISN’T “safe to assume that THEY know the difference in doctrine and have chosen one over the other”?
And what business it is of mine – or yours – whether they call themselves Presbyterians or Lutherans or Democrats or Socialists?
And why does anyone owe Chris Matthews an explanation, either way?

And for the record, I’d vote for the Communist Party before I’d vote for any party that opposed gay rights. I have no intention of sacrificing my own freedom for the convenience of others, no matter how noble they may be.

@George Wells:

explain to me how it ISN’T “safe to assume that THEY know the difference in doctrine and have chosen one over the other”?

If DWS knows the difference, it should be easily explained. Instead, she played the subject shell game.

And what business it is of mine – or yours – whether they call themselves Presbyterians or Lutherans or Democrats or Socialists?

Because American voters have the right to know what the people they are voting for stand for.

And why does anyone owe Chris Matthews an explanation, either way?

I assume he is also a voter.

And for the record, I’d vote for the Communist Party before I’d vote for any party that opposed gay rights.

That was determined a long time ago as you continue to protest how you really are a Republican.