Even MSNBC now unable to distinguish between Democrats and Socialists

[The Cadet]

Yet, quite frankly I can't name one department in government that is efficient in how they run things. They aren't nimble enough for circumstances in which things need to happen fast, and they don't take to accountability very well - and since they run things? Can pretty much get around not being held accountable to the degree no one else can. Yet, they claim they work for us...what a joke.

Do you have any actual figures on that? Like, any concrete examples or evidence? I'm kind of missing the context here - how efficiently do you expect them to run, how efficiently do they actually run, and how efficiently do things in, say, business run? I know for example that Welfare fraud is allegedly rampant... But at around 2%, it's actually lower than the fraud rate of most businesses. These are important things to keep in mind - government is not perfect, but nobody can really expect them to be.

Barack Obama has been abundantly clear about wanting to redistribute wealth ... the hallmark of socialism.

...No, the hallmark of socialism is redistributing the means of production. Redistributing wealth is something democracies do on a regular basis, as unchecked capitalism often leads to extreme wealth disparities (and social unrest as a result). Almost every functional democracy on the planet has some form of social safety net that redistributes wealth from the well-off to those in need of aid.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Whether he does or doesn't, one thing does remain true: he ain't done it.

Nor has he done anything else that could be considered socialist. Not one blessed thing.

-- A2SG, just look at "Obamacare", which is no more socialist than anything else the Heritage Foundation has come up with.....

Ahh ... so he's just a self-absorbed ego-maniacal little twerp who's been aggregating personal political power, rather than doing anything which could actually benefit Democrat voters.

Perhaps there's a lesson there.

 

[Goonie]

Ahh ... so he's just a self-absorbed ego-maniacal little twerp who's been aggregating personal political power, rather than doing anything which could actually benefit Democrat voters.

Perhaps there's a lesson there.

So enough about Ted Cruz, what about Obama?

 

[The Cadet]

Ahh ... so he's just a self-absorbed ego-maniacal little twerp who's been aggregating personal political power, rather than doing anything which could actually benefit Democrat voters.

There was the ACA. The Iran deal. The stimulus. Dodd-Frank (which would be a lot less toothless if Republicans hadn't gotten in the way at every turn). The repeal of DADT. I'm not sure what universe you're living in in which Obama accomplished nothing.

 

[NightHawkeye]

So enough about Ted Cruz, what about Obama?

Actually, Ted Cruz's policies would benefit Democrat voters. Just sayin ...

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Actually, Ted Cruz's policies would benefit Democrat voters. Just sayin ...

YAH Ted Cruz is not aboot what those other hosers are aboot, eh? He will take over the White Hoose and the Hoose of Representatives and still have time for a bag of milk and Tim Horton's and some poutine while watching some hockey, eh! He is trying hard to be the favourite and the centre of attention, eh?

 

[The Cadet]

Actually, Ted Cruz's policies would benefit Democrat voters. Just sayin ...

You mean like repealing Obamacare? Yeah, that's really gonna help a lot of Democrats, particularly the substantial number of people who were able to get health insurance for the first time thanks to the exchanges. Ending net neutrality is also a great policy option that helps a lot of Democrats*. Supporting states rights on gay marriage is another great step forward**. Requiring a balanced budget would help everyone***. Flat taxes sure would help democrats****.


*Note: only helps democrats who work for AT&T or Verizon
**Note: not actually forward
***Note: assuming they want to lose weight, because after this makes anticyclical economic policy impossible, a lot of people are gonna have a lot of trouble
****Note: going off the assumption that democrats have a "Massive deficit" fetish

 

[NightHawkeye]

Noting that this is not a Ted Cruz thread.

This thread is about the FACT that Democrat spokespeople are currently unable to articulate any differences between themselves and socialists.

 

[The Cadet]

Noting that this is not a Ted Cruz thread.

Hey, you brought him up first.

This thread is about the FACT that Democrat spokespeople are currently unable to articulate any differences between themselves and socialists.

Any differences in policy between them and a self-described socialist who is mislabling himself.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Noting that this is not a Ted Cruz thread.

This thread is about the FACT that Democrat spokespeople are currently unable to articulate any differences between themselves and socialists.

YAH!!! Nawt a Ted Cruz thread, eh!!! It's aboot something else, eh!!! I need a looney to buy a bag o'milk to go with my Tim Horton's, it's my favourite coffee, with a maple donut, eh!!

 

[NightHawkeye]

Hey, you brought him up first.

Your statement is incorrect.

Again, this thread is about the FACT that Democrat spokespeople are currently unable to articulate any differences between themselves and socialists.

 

[The Cadet]

Any differences in policy between them and a self-described socialist who is mislabling himself.

^^

 

[Deviant Writer]

Your statement is incorrect.

Again, this thread is about the FACT that Democrat spokespeople are currently unable to articulate any differences between themselves and socialists.

No, this thread was about "no Democrats" being able to do it, which was wrong, because I did it and so did other Democrats on this forum. So this thread is really about a terrible OP being proved wrong in the first two pages, and then you moved the goalposts elsewhere.

If a random Democratic congressman had explained the difference, you'd be here saying "wow it'd be nice if Obama's administration articulated this difference" and "this thread is about the 'fact' that Obama's administration has not articulated the differences."

And if Clinton had explained the difference, you'd be on here saying "wow, it'd be nice if Obama explained the difference."

And if Obama had explained the difference, you'd be on here saying that he was a socialist anyways.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, this thread was about "no Democrats" being able to do it, which was wrong ...

LOL ... noting the title of the OP:
Even MSNBC now unable to distinguish between Democrats and Socialists

 

[Deviant Writer]

LOL ... noting the title of the OP:

Which was also wrong, seeing as how Chris Matthews was laughing throughout the interview and very obviously joking, because knows how stupid the premise is.

LOL. ROFL

 

[NightHawkeye]

Which was also wrong, seeing as how Chris Matthews was laughing throughout the interview and very obviously joking, because knows how stupid the premise is.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[Deviant Writer]

Thank you for your opinion.

Not an opinion that he's laughing and smiling through much of the video.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not an opinion that he's laughing and smiling through much of the video.

As he attempts repeatedly to extract an answer to the question.

 

[Deviant Writer]

As he attempts repeatedly to extract an answer to the question.

That he knows is stupid, hence his smiling.

 

[HannahT]

Do you have any actual figures on that? Like, any concrete examples or evidence? I'm kind of missing the context here - how efficiently do you expect them to run, how efficiently do they actually run, and how efficiently do things in, say, business run? I know for example that Welfare fraud is allegedly rampant... But at around 2%, it's actually lower than the fraud rate of most businesses. These are important things to keep in mind - government is not perfect, but nobody can really expect them to be.

Can you give me figures showing they are? I wasn't commenting on 'welfare fraud', and so I don't know why you even brought it up. How about you ask for context instead of jumping to conclusions! Since humans aren't perfect government wouldn't be either - so that was a rather silly comment on your part.

I help many people that need these social services, and by my experience dealing them...they aren't efficient. They are slow to react, etc. When someone comes to them because they are homeless? Waiting 8 weeks or more for ideas on housing isn't what you should expect. Sadly, its regular business. It rots right now because the weather is awful, and its dangerous outside...and so where do they expect them go and wait for paperwork to process?

Now, if I drive that person to organization afterwards that is OUT of the area because they are all that is available outside government? They have a warm bed that night. Then they find other circumstances until something hops with the government. Government tells them to figure something out until their time comes - they give no ideas on where to go.

It's pretty much the same with many of the services that tend to be needed on a urgent basis. I just named one.

So, where are you concrete example or evidence of their effectiveness?