Posted on 08/02/2015 3:37:18 PM PDT by Enlightened1
Things got very awkward on Thursday when Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference was between the modern Democratic Party and Socialism.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz was completely stumped. She couldn’t answer the question.
We haven’t seen that dazed look since Rachel Dolezal was busted as a fraud.
Because, as we all know, there is no difference between today’s Democrat Party and radical Socialism.
On Sunday DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was again asked to explain the difference between the modern day Democratic Party and Socialism. Again She failed.
“You know Chuck it is always fun to be interviewed by Chris Matthews and I know that he enjoys that banter. The important distinction that I think we’re going to be discussing, I’m confident we’ll be discussing in this campaign, is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to make sure that people have an opportunity to reach, climb the ladders of success and reach the Middle Class, have a good education, have a secure retirement. Look at the Republican field for what they stand for is the extremism you see in full display….”
Wow! At least they’re not bragging about it yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
She will never be able to “tell the difference” because there is no difference.
Uh, debbie. Listen closely. It was a trick question. There isn’t any difference. DOH!
it’s a difference without a distinction.
Debbie Blabbermouth is not real big on “distinctions.”
She can’t - for example - tell the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant.
Of course, that’s true for every Democrat.
A skunk by any other name...
The difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant is that those who are waiting in line to become citizens will still be waiting while the illegals are instantly granted citizen status when amnesty comes.
You know, Todd probably thought that he was throwing her a softball - it would take a particularly spectacular complete idiot to flub in public and not research, and prepare carefully to answer that question again. Several days had passed. Well, Debbie is that particularly spectacular complete idiot.
I hope that she keeps her job for many years, because she is vastly entertaining, and is sure to help Republicans. They are also incompetent and they need all of the help that they can get.
I wonder why that Hoft homo tries to profit off stolen videos?
Some socialists can eventually be converted (It happened in the USSR)
Democrats are afflicted with terminal idiocy, arrogance and hypocrisy.
“Debbie Blabbermouth is not real big on “distinctions.”
She can’t - for example - tell the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant.
Of course, that’s true for every Democrat.”
I respectfully disagree. They are incredibly diligent and meticulous in separating, classifying, and singling out in fine detail every single kind of occupant of America.
So, the democrats believe people should be allowed to reach the middle class. Isn’t that nice of them. But, thanks to them, there is no middle class.
The Democrat Party is most more closely aligned with Facism (in fact, 100% aligned according to Benito Mussolini). Under Facism government simply controls business (skimming off the top, of course).
The New Deal was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and, above all, the power relationships within the nation. It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. ... it was made not by tanks and machine guns, but by acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court . ... Whether the revolutionists prefer to call themselves Fabians, who seek power by the inevitability of gradualism, or Bolsheviks, who seek power by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the struggle is for power.
Now I thought that I understood much better something that in the past had vaguely nibbled at my mind, but never nibbled to a conclusion–namely, how it happened that so many concealed Communists were clustered in Government, and how it was possible for them to operate so freely with so little fear of detection. For as between revolutionists who only half know what they are doing and revolutionists who know exactly what they are doing the latter are in a superb maneuvering position. At the basic point of the revolution–the shift of power from business to government–the two kinds of revolutionists were at one; and they shared many other views and hopes. Thus men who sincerely abhorred the word Communism, in the pursuit of common ends found that they were unable to distinguish Communists from themselves, except that it was just the Communists who were likely to be most forthright and most dedicated in the common cause. This political colorblindness was all the more dogged because it was completely honest. For men who could not see that what they firmly believed was liberalism added up to socialism could scarcely be expected to see what added up to Communism. Any charge of Communism enraged them precisely because they could not grasp the differences between themselves and those against whom it was made. Conscious of their own political innocence, they suspected that it was merely mischievous, and was aimed, from motives of political malice, at themselves. But as the struggle was really for revolutionary power, which in our age is always a struggle for control of the masses, that was the point at which they always betrayed their real character, for they reacted not like liberals, but with the fierceness of revolutionists whenever that power was at issue.
. . . . Every move against the Communists was felt by the liberals as a move against themselves. . . . Unlike the liberals, the Communists were fully aware of their superior tactical position, and knew that they had only to shout their innocence and cry: ‘Witch hunt!’ for the liberals to rally in all innocence to their defense”
- Whittaker Chambers, "Witness"
just say, “there is no difference” and you will correct. But then, that would telling the truth something democrats don’t like to do.
Neither can anyone else.
well said..
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.