American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Bernie Sanders openly admits it. Maxine Waters outed herself, at least in my opinion.
Did anyone see her gaff a while back. It was long before the gulf oil spill.
I'll do my best to explain what happened
They were talking about oil companies needing to do something about their huge profits or something like that. She proceeded to say if they didn't then "we will just soc...sociali ...ummm ummmm take over their companies". It was priceless but eye opening.

I never said that none of them were socialist, only most.

 

[Harshaw]

I accepted notion is that most of them aren't socialists. It is up to you to prove it.

Never said that he is the only one, but in all likelihood, most aren't.

I didn't claim they were, only that I'd be surprised if more weren't. You're declaring that most of them aren't. On what basis do you make such a declarative statement?

Of course the socialists have a vested interest to make their ranks look bigger.

Of course they do.

A more mixed economy with less government control than a socialist. Really Harshaw, I shouldn't have to define the difference to a poster as experienced as yourself.

Then it's a matter of degree and not substance, which is what I said.

The important similarity is that each pair is similar, but not the same. That is the only point of the analogy.

No, there are a number of substantive differences between conservatives and libertarians, particularly on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage (conservatives seek to keep both illegal; libertarians favor both being legal), immigration (libertarians favor open borders; conservatives favor even greater restrictions than we have now), international interventionism (conservatives are often for it; libertarians aren't), a whole other raft of social issues, etc. Those are significant actual differences, not merely matters of degree.

Whereas, with progressives, socialists would welcome anything a progressive would want to do, but may want to go further with it.

And, of course, the difference is predicated on the idea that there could a point at which progressives would say "OK, we've done enough" and then stop. Do you really think they would?

 

[Barbbtx]

I never said that none of them were socialist, only most.

And I'm only pointing out one more than Bernie Sanders. That's not to say they aren't all socialist or that most of them aren't. I happen to think they are. If it walks like a duck....

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

And I'm only pointing out one more than Bernie Sanders. That's not to say they aren't all socialist or that most of them aren't. I happen to think they are. If it walks like a duck....

You're being obtuse.

I didn't claim they were, only that I'd be surprised if more weren't. You're declaring that most of them aren't. On what basis do you make such a declarative statement?

There's no evidence that most of them are. They don't claim to be that far to the left. A few might be socialist, but the large majority of even liberal districts wouldn't go that far in this country. They say that they're liberal, that's evidence enough for me unless shown otherwise.

Of course they do.

You need to consider this.

Then it's a matter of degree and not substance, which is what I said.

It's a matter of the two being different.

No, there are a number of substantive differences between conservatives and libertarians, particularly on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage (conservatives seek to keep both illegal; libertarians favor both being legal), immigration (libertarians favor open borders; conservatives favor even greater restrictions than we have now), international interventionism (conservatives are often for it; libertarians aren't), a whole other raft of social issues, etc. Those are significant actual differences, not merely matters of degree.

Whereas, with progressives, socialists would welcome anything a progressive would want to do, but may want to go further with it.

And, of course, the difference is predicated on the idea that there could a point at which progressives would say "OK, we've done enough" and then stop. Do you really think they would?

A campfire and a forest fire are both fires in the woods. Yet, I'd be a fool for equating them. Progressivism is a large camp. It doesn't have defined boundaries where you say, if you believe in this, "You're not a Progressive." Same thing with Libertarianism. Most Libertarians believe in a little more government than police and courts. Where do you draw the line of socialism? Simply comparing a Progressive with a Socialist is foolish. They do have differences

 

[Harshaw]

You're being obtuse.

:shrug: If you say so. I'm being logically consistent.

There's no evidence that most of them are. They don't claim to be that far to the left. A few might be socialist, but the large majority of even liberal districts wouldn't go that far in this country. They say that they're liberal, that's evidence enough for me unless shown otherwise.

That's not the same thing as you said before.

You need to consider this.

I never did otherwise.

I was referring to ideological affinity, not card-carrying membership in a group. The DSA considers, specifically, the CPC to be its own representation in Congress. That's not claiming anyone as members. That's saying "these people affirmatively represent our ideas and viewpoints." It's not about numbers; it's about ideas.

It's a matter of the two being different.

A campfire and a forest fire are both fires in the woods. Yet, I'd be a fool for equating them. Progressivism is a large camp. It doesn't have defined boundaries where you say, if you believe in this, "You're not a Progressive." Same thing with Libertarianism. Most Libertarians believe in a little more government than police and courts. Where do you draw the line of socialism? Simply comparing a Progressive with a Socialist is foolish. They do have differences

Look; we're obviously not going to come to common ground on this. But the difference isn't anywhere as grandiose as that between a campfire and forest fire; that would be the difference between libertarians and totalitarians.

It's much more like the difference between the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts. All in the same camp; the Boy Scouts just do a lot more.

 

[Andalublue]

Unless they advocate government ownership of the means of production, who cares what someone considers them to be? They aren't socialists.

Not exactly, socialists believe in 'common ownership' i.e. ownership by the people, not the government. If the government is not democratically accountable and popularly controlled then you get 'socialism' along the tried and failed soviet model, which ain't socialism.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Then you have disqualified pretty much every "socialist" system in the Western world. You may want to ask many prominent European socialists what they think of that. There are a number of self-described Euro-socialists this very board.

And you've also explained in detail what exactly is "wrong" or "scary" about socialism, and why Americans are right to reject it outright. :shrug:

How about it, European Socialists? Are you really socialists, or are you closet capitalists?

What nation in the Western world is socialist, anyway? Well, Cuba is, Venezuela is going that direction, but really, what other western nations are socialist?

Even China has adopted capitalism, and is really kicking butt in international business.


There is a good reason for all of that, of course. Socialism doesn't work very well. Who wants to live like the Cubans, after all?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

:shrug: If you say so. I'm being logically consistent.

He was implying that there were more socialists in Congress, or it was a pointless statement.

That's not the same thing as you said before.

When did I say that none of them were socialist?

I never did otherwise.

I was referring to ideological affinity, not card-carrying membership in a group. The DSA considers, specifically, the CPC to be its own representation in Congress. That's not claiming anyone as members. That's saying "these people affirmatively represent our ideas and viewpoints." It's not about numbers; it's about ideas.

And the DSA doesn't have evidence of these people being socialists.

Look; we're obviously not going to come to common ground on this. But the difference isn't anywhere as grandiose as that between a campfire and forest fire; that would be the difference between libertarians and totalitarians.

It's much more like the difference between the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts. All in the same camp; the Boy Scouts just do a lot more.

Yet you're acknowledging a difference! I never claimed that they were opposites. The best arguments you have are pointless nitpicks of my analogies.

 

[GayLibertarian]

The strange thing is, a large portion of those Democrats are millionaires (several are slum lords, one earned his money in oil), which is patently un-socialist.

 

[Harshaw]

He was implying that there were more socialists in Congress, or it was a pointless statement.

When did I say otherwise?

When did I say that none of them were socialist?

You didn't. :shrug: But you declared affirmatively that most of them aren't..

But apparently, you're not going to acknowledge the point of logic, so there's really no point in going into it again.

And the DSA doesn't have evidence of these people being socialists.

See, this is where you get into trouble. You have no way of knowing that -- they may well have such evidence -- but you're declaring affirmatively that they don't.

Yet you're acknowledging a difference! I never claimed that they were opposites. The best arguments you have are pointless nitpicks of my analogies.

I never DIDN'T acknowledge a difference. :roll:

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

When did I say otherwise?

I wasn't talking to you there. That's why I quoted Barbbtx.

You didn't. :shrug: But you declared affirmatively that most of them aren't.

But apparently, you're not going to acknowledge the point of logic, so there's really no point in going into it again.

No, I stated that there is no evidence of most of them being closet socialists. The currently accepted answer, and what most of these congresspeople say they are, is that they are progressives. There is no evidence to contradict their claim. Usually, when someone tells me their political beliefs, I believe that they aren't making stuff up, unless shown otherwise.

See, this is where you get into trouble. You have no way of knowing that -- they may well have such evidence -- but you're declaring affirmatively that they don't.

They haven't shown any. Only a few of these people have declared themselves Socialist. Most of them say they are Liberal. Now I mistrust politicians too, but I fail to see a reason not to believe most of them here, where they say that they aren't socialist. The DSA taking a list of progressives, and assuming that they're socialist in order to make their ideology look more influential than it is isn't enough.

I never DIDN'T acknowledge a difference. :roll:

Then why did you ask for one?

 

[Harshaw]

You didn't quote Babbtx; you quoted me.

Look, you're just repeating yourself, so this is pointless. If you want my answers, read my original responses to them.

 

[Harshaw]

Well, what do you know -- I heard from ASV. They said:

In short, "No." American Socialist Voter does not publish a newsletter. The list was quoted incorrectly on the wrong page and was removed as fast as it was found to have been misplaced several months ago.

That sounded to me like it actually was on their website as it's shown in the "newsletter," so I followed up:

There were a lot of questions around it -- just to be clear, are you saying someone took shots of your web page, which had the list erroneously posted, and called it a "newsletter"?

They responded:

If the right-winger who made a copy had taken the time to read the bottom of the page for the disclaimer then it would have been clear that ASV is not a party, but a website for voters to educate themselves about both extremes of socialism's left and right from communism to nationalism. By spreading this as a truism it makes the pundits and bloggers on the republican or tea side look real bad and very reactionary. They were to lazy to read the front page sidebar listing extreme elements, both left to right, and the bottom of the page.

So, it wasn't a fake. But it also wasn't what it was presented as.

 

[liblady]

We told the liberal all along. Hahahahahahah, they are nothing but commies. Bernie Sanders has always been a flaming commie.

communism = socialism? really?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

You didn't quote Babbtx; you quoted me.

Look at the post. Part of it was quoting you. Part of it was quoting barbbtx. "You're being obtuse" wasn't under a white box that said, "Originally posted by Harshaw"

Look, you're just repeating yourself, so this is pointless. If you want my answers, read my original responses to them.

I've read your posts, and the list claiming that 70 members of congress are socialist is bull****.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Well, what do you know -- I heard from ASV. They said:



That sounded to me like it actually was on their website as it's shown in the "newsletter," so I followed up:



They responded:



So, it wasn't a fake. But it also wasn't what it was presented as.

I never said that they didn't post this list. I said that it's misleading to state that these 70 congresspeople on the list are socialist.

 

[Harshaw]

I never said that they didn't post this list. I said that it's misleading to state that these 70 congresspeople on the list are socialist.

I didn't post that in response to anything you said. I was following up on an earlier post of my own.

 

[Harshaw]

Look at the post. Part of it was quoting you. Part of it was quoting barbbtx. "You're being obtuse" wasn't under a white box that said, "Originally posted by Harshaw"

Then that is my mistake.

I've read your posts, and the list claiming that 70 members of congress are socialist is bull****.

:roll: Noted for the record.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So, it wasn't a fake. But it also wasn't what it was presented as.

fake
1    /feɪk/ Show Spelled [feyk] Show IPA verb, faked, fak·ing, noun, adjective

noun
9.
anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit: This diamond necklace is a fake.

It was made to appear otherwise than what it actually is, but it isn't a fake???????

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I didn't post that in response to anything you said. I was following up on an earlier post of my own.

Sorry, noted

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

:roll: Noted for the record.

All I'm asking for is evidence, that these people are closet Socialists. I don't care what some third party concerned with creating an image of inflated influence says. Give me some quotes or actions from these "socialists"

 

[Harshaw]

It was made to appear otherwise than what it actually is, but it isn't a fake???????

There was nothing in the content which was fabricated; the pages were screenshots of the ASV website just as they appeared. It was called a "newsletter" when it was actually a web page, but that's the the only thing which was false. The content was quite real.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There was nothing in the content which was fabricated; the pages were screenshots of the ASV website just as they appeared. It was called a "newsletter" when it was actually a web page, but that's the the only thing which was false. The content was quite real.

and yet, the people listed were fake socialists.

 

[Harshaw]

and yet, the people listed were fake socialists.

Then take it up with ASV, because they were the ones who called them that. There was no forgery on the part of whomever posted it online.

 

[Dav]

to me, this seems to be a non issue, you can't seriously expect socialists to go in the republican party can you?

IF this was true, then it would indeed be a very, very big issue. "Socialism" has become little more than an insult in American politics, and liberals get extremely frustrated when people call their policies "socialist". The revelation that a good fourth of Democrats in Congress are actual socialists would not only get every single one of them voted out of office, but would be a gigantic blow to the Democratic Party in general. It would be as if it was revealed that a large portion of House Republicans are self-admitted Nazis and white supremacists.


However, I doubted this was true from the beginning... and by the looks of it, it's not. It seemed highly unrealistic anyways.