On this day of JFK's birthday, what would he be ashamed of most?

[Pogo]

He would be most disappointed in what the democrat party has become.

Perhaps he'd be equally disappointed in what the English language has become.

Not really . They all spoke with that elitest main accent. Hardly English.

Are you trying to say "Maine"?

As I said --- English is a lost art. And they weren't from Maine anyway.

I was referring directly to the post I quoted, not to the Kennedys. See if you can find it. Actually he did the same thing you did with "main".

 

[Pogo]

By "party" I meant voters that belong to that party, not the actual political party itself.

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.

What's the difference between a "democratic socialist" and a "socialist".

You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?

I disagree that the electorate got fucked. Do I think both Trump and Hillary were awful candidates? Absolutely. Do I think that both parties dropped the ball? Absolutely. Do I think either party actually gives a shit? No, I don't.

So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

You know who I blame? The American voters who keep voting the same assholes into office...and then complain about the same assholes being in office.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "**** it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

 

[mgh80]

By "party" I meant voters that belong to that party, not the actual political party itself.

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.

What's the difference between a "democratic socialist" and a "socialist".

You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?

I disagree that the electorate got fucked. Do I think both Trump and Hillary were awful candidates? Absolutely. Do I think that both parties dropped the ball? Absolutely. Do I think either party actually gives a shit? No, I don't.

So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

You know who I blame? The American voters who keep voting the same assholes into office...and then complain about the same assholes being in office.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "**** it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

Third party.

Oh and I called Sanders a "socialist"--you're the one who claimed he was actually a "democratic socialist". I simply asked you to explain the difference. If you can't support your claims, then I suggest that your arguments are rather weak.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Space program. We should have been on Mars by now.

We are on Mars

So when did we land a man on Mars ?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Without a doubt the resurgence of fascism in America.

Second only to Trump being President.

do you even know what fascism means? give us a definition.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Any other stupid questions?

Fascism is a socialist form of government. Derived from the Italian word "fascio" meaning a bundle of sticks.

 

[Pogo]

By "party" I meant voters that belong to that party, not the actual political party itself.

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.

What's the difference between a "democratic socialist" and a "socialist".

You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?

I disagree that the electorate got fucked. Do I think both Trump and Hillary were awful candidates? Absolutely. Do I think that both parties dropped the ball? Absolutely. Do I think either party actually gives a shit? No, I don't.

So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

You know who I blame? The American voters who keep voting the same assholes into office...and then complain about the same assholes being in office.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "**** it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

Third party.

Oh and I called Sanders a "socialist"--you're the one who claimed he was actually a "democratic socialist". I simply asked you to explain the difference. If you can't support your claims, then I suggest that your arguments are rather weak.

YOU made the assertion, Sparkles. I just corrected it.

So why did you change it in the first place? Not very honest, is it.

As for having third party as a choice (in the final election) only voters in locked-red or locked-blue states have that, and by definition since their state is locked it's going to have zero effect. I've done it and it's completely unsatisfying to pore down the state's totals and go "see that little number -- I'm in there". It makes bupkis difference. You might as well have stayed home for all the effect it had.

 

[Pogo]

By "party" I meant voters that belong to that party, not the actual political party itself.

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.

What's the difference between a "democratic socialist" and a "socialist".

You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?

I disagree that the electorate got fucked. Do I think both Trump and Hillary were awful candidates? Absolutely. Do I think that both parties dropped the ball? Absolutely. Do I think either party actually gives a shit? No, I don't.

So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

You know who I blame? The American voters who keep voting the same assholes into office...and then complain about the same assholes being in office.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "**** it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

Third party.

Oh and I called Sanders a "socialist"--you're the one who claimed he was actually a "democratic socialist". I simply asked you to explain the difference. If you can't support your claims, then I suggest that your arguments are rather weak.

YOU made the assertion, Sparkles. I just corrected it.

So why did you change it in the first place? Not very honest, is it.

As for having third party as a choice (in the final election) only voters in locked-red or locked-blue states have that, and by definition since their state is locked it's going to have zero effect. I've done it and it's completely unsatisfying to pore down the state's totals and go "see that little number -- I'm in there". It makes bupkis difference. You might as well have stayed home for all the effect it had.

Copied from a recent post:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3]Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.[4][5]
Social democracy - Wikipedia​

"Nordic countries" is a key clue. Sanders' go-to example has been Denmark.

 

[mgh80]

By "party" I meant voters that belong to that party, not the actual political party itself.

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.

What's the difference between a "democratic socialist" and a "socialist".

You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?

I disagree that the electorate got fucked. Do I think both Trump and Hillary were awful candidates? Absolutely. Do I think that both parties dropped the ball? Absolutely. Do I think either party actually gives a shit? No, I don't.

So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

You know who I blame? The American voters who keep voting the same assholes into office...and then complain about the same assholes being in office.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "**** it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

Third party.

Oh and I called Sanders a "socialist"--you're the one who claimed he was actually a "democratic socialist". I simply asked you to explain the difference. If you can't support your claims, then I suggest that your arguments are rather weak.

YOU made the assertion, Sparkles. I just corrected it.

So why did you change it in the first place? Not very honest, is it.

As for having third party as a choice (in the final election) only voters in locked-red or locked-blue states have that, and by definition since their state is locked it's going to have zero effect. I've done it and it's completely unsatisfying to pore down the state's totals and go "see that little number -- I'm in there". It makes bupkis difference. You might as well have stayed home for all the effect it had.

-What did I change? You stated I changed something?

-A "democratic socialist" is a "socialist"...hence the second word in the title.

-Third parties (over the course of time) CAN eventually be major parties. Hell we have one right now that has the presidency, the House and the Senate. Would you have told the people who voted Republican back in the 1800's that their votes were useless and wouldn't ever affect America?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

His daddy buying his election ???
The Bay of pigs ???
The Cuban missile crisis ???
His Vietnam fiasco ????
His infidelity ???
His drunken, retarded brother Teddy ???

Hard to say................

 

[rightwinger]

He would be most disappointed in what the democrat party has become.

He would love that we got a universal healthcare program, civil rights, environmental protections.

we had universal healthcare before obozocare. No one in the USA was denied medical care before ACA. NO ONE.

The civil rights act of 1965 was filibustered by democrats.

No one is opposed to stopping pollution. NO ONE. Its only you ignorant liberals that think pollution causes global warming and kills polar bears.

No, we had survival of the fittest healthcare

JFK wanted to implement a national healthcare plan, he couldn't do it....Obama did

JFK would be very proud......His brother worked very hard for it his whole life

 

[Scamp]

Kennedy fell for the classic blunder.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

 

[IM2]

He would be ashamed of idiot conservatives trying to hijack his memory.

 

[rightwinger]

Kennedy fell for the classic blunder.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

INCONCEIVABLE

Thanks Vizzini

 

[Scamp]

Kennedy fell for the classic blunder.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

INCONCEIVABLE

Thanks Vizzini

Kennedy fell for the classic blunder.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

INCONCEIVABLE

Thanks Vizzini

Yep.

 

[IM2]

But I do believe this war started during Eisenhower.

 

[Scamp]

But I do believe this war started during Eisenhower.

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

 

[Redfish]

Without a doubt the resurgence of fascism in America.

Second only to Trump being President.

do you even know what fascism means? give us a definition.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Any other stupid questions?

would it be fascist to have a government where every citizen was dependent on it for the basic necessities of life? Would it be fascist to riot and prevent citizens from expressing their freedom of speech? your definition is a good one and it describes the exact form of government that you on the left are asking for. Rewriting history, removing monuments, only allowing one viewpoint, the media as an arm of the government.

the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans practice what you say you want.

Having a social safety net for those in need is a long way from having every citizen dependent on the government for their basic necessities. Another example of fascist paranoid delusions perhaps?

When your expressions of "freedom of speech" include the profession of persecuting other people and of denying them there rights, you can bet that people are going to riot. All rights are limited rights. When your exercise of rights suppresses other people's rights your rights end.

We liberals allow many viewpoints, but when some people's viewpoints advocate suppressing other people rights we draw the line.

Removing monuments that honor traitors is absolutely justified. Those monuments should never have been allowed to have been erected. They are an insult to all those people who have fought for the freedoms that we all enjoy in this country. Honoring slavers and those that protected slavery is anti-American.

With freedom comes responsibility and those who try to exercise freedoms irresponsibly do not deserve those freedoms.

you are sadly misinformed on many things. Let me see if I can help

conservatives WANT a social safety net for those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. We want it for all needy people regardless of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. BUT, we believe that voluntary charities do a much better job of providing those services than the government. Yes, the government has a role but it has gotten out of control when we have generations of families on welfare when they are able to work, when we reward women for having children with no father in the home.

Did what happened at Berkley equal freedom of speech in your mind? Destroying public and private property in order to prevent a conservative viewpoint from being heard? Those rioters were suppressing the first amendment rights of others, are you OK with that?

The civil war was not about slavery. It was about taxation. There were more slaves in New York state than in Georgia. There were slaves in Illinois (land of Lincoln) AFTER the civil war. The largest slaveowner in the USA was a black man. The monuments to confederate generals were put up to honor the people who died fighting for what they believed in, they are part of American history. Removing them is equivalent to the Taliban removing Buddhas in Afghanistan.

I agree with your last statement 100%. Today its those on the left who are trying to deprive others who disagree with them of their basic constitutional freedoms. A biased left wing media does not represent freedom of speech, it represents indoctrination. Something that Hitler and Stalin did very well in the 1930s.

You seem like a smart guy, please get some education on American and world history.

 

[Redfish]

But I do believe this war started during Eisenhower.

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

 

[Redfish]

He would be most disappointed in what the democrat party has become.

He would love that we got a universal healthcare program, civil rights, environmental protections.

we had universal healthcare before obozocare. No one in the USA was denied medical care before ACA. NO ONE.

The civil rights act of 1965 was filibustered by democrats.

No one is opposed to stopping pollution. NO ONE. Its only you ignorant liberals that think pollution causes global warming and kills polar bears.

No, we had survival of the fittest healthcare

JFK wanted to implement a national healthcare plan, he couldn't do it....Obama did

JFK would be very proud......His brother worked very hard for it his whole life

that is not true. before ACA no one in the USA was denied medical care. NO ONE, even those here illegally.

ACA was the worst piece of legislation in the history of our nation. It is self destructing as we speak. Yeah, its great if you get it free, but for those who have to pay, it sucks big time.

But those who get it free today, got free medical care before ACA. Ever hear of Medicaid, and medicare, and charities? No one in the USA was turned away and left to die before ACA. To claim otherwise is a massive LIE

 

[Redfish]

Democrat party is a proper name. democrat is an adjective and as such should not be capitalized.

"Democrat party" isn't the name of anything Homer. Not in this language.

What's more, democrat, even with a small D meaning a generic advocate of democracy, isn't an adjective anyway --- it's a NOUN. The adjective would be democratic.

Besides all of which, you used the noun democrat with a small D, which means an advocate of democracy, regardless of political party. Now if you had said Democrat you'd be referring to some member of that party.

Reading is a lost art.

Give me the names of current democrats who would say what Kennedy said, or even believe in the concept he was advocating for.

You want a list of registered Democrats?

Not interested -- do your own research. Contact the DNC.

oh geez, grammar 101. nugatory and histrionic

Not a single democrat believes or would say what Kennedy said. Kennedy would be a republican if he was alive today. Not one of today's democrats would call Russia's bluff and do a Cuban blockade, not one would dedicate the country to putting a man on the moon and bringing him back safely. Today's dems are interested in creating an ever larger dependent class that will keep them and their cronies in power and allow them to get rich at the taxpayers' expense.