• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Progressives" Win Big Over Establishment Democrats

logger said:
Lol

Truth being that this is all due to Obama?
Click to expand...

No.

Technology and innovation is the driver. Has been for some time.

Trump is nothing. A parasite. A manipulator. He's never produced anything useful or done any real work. All he's ever done is manipulate people into giving him what he wants. He does that with his mouth. He's like a dog that's constantly chewing on something.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
No.

Technology and innovation is the driver. Has been for some time.

Trump is nothing. A parasite. A manipulator. He's never produced anything useful or done any real work. All he's ever done is manipulate people into giving him what he wants. He does that with his mouth.
Click to expand...

So government can’t slow it down? You’re in deep denial!
 
logger said:
So government can’t slow it down? You’re in deep denial!
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. I am not in deep denial because government can slow it down.

I do deeply deny that Snow Job Trump and the 286 dwarves have created an economic miracle. All the dwarves did was stonewall for the last 6 years of the previous administration while Trump spread lies and conspiracy theories and engaged in covert bimbo exploitation and suppression. Then, when they got a president who would sign off on their crap, they failed repeatedly before barely managing to push a tax bribe through.

A surfer who finally manages to catch a wave does not deserve credit for the wave.

Sure, politikers can sabotage an economy. But most of them aren't that stupid. They want to get reelected.

But these Republicans are playing with fire. Gambling big on money borrowed from the next generation. Running up record deficits, bribing the rich to keep them in power. Counting on bribes they've given to people who mostly don't even need the bribes. And the economy hasn't responded much. Economic growth is less than 3%. It needs to be 4% to break the gamblers even. They've stomped the accelerator pedal, and now they're trying to push it through the floor.

I used to drive like that when I was younger and had a hot car. I blew the head gasket and cracked the head.
 
Last edited:
The Dems have found a successful model for beating Republicans; they took a district that Trump won by 20 points in Pennsylvania using it. The Progressives in San Francisco and Philadelphia will probably not make a difference but a progressive surge trying to take back Trump seats will not go well. Democrats need to offer themselves as a safe, sane alternative to Trump. Progressives vs. Trump Republicans will takes us back to the 2016 election of voters choosing the least bad options.
 
Craig4 said:
The Dems have found a successful model for beating Republicans; they took a district that Trump won by 20 points in Pennsylvania using it. The Progressives in San Francisco and Philadelphia will probably not make a difference but a progressive surge trying to take back Trump seats will not go well. Democrats need to offer themselves as a safe, sane alternative to Trump. Progressives vs. Trump Republicans will takes us back to the 2016 election of voters choosing the least bad options.
Click to expand...

Could you let me know what you think the damaging policies of the progressives are?
 
Brainster said:
It's understandable. For many years, the convention was that red stood for the Democrats and blue for the Republicans. Sometime after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Democrats realized that perhaps red was not the best branding for them, and got the compliant media to go along with the change.
Click to expand...
Where do you come up with this stuff? Is that like Karl Rove repeating Democrat Party and got the compliant media to continue using the noun instead of the adjective, Democratic Party?:rolleyes:

But I digress.


It's all on the economy. If the unemployment rate is still low in 2020, expect Trump to be reelected in a walk.
Click to expand...
That's what the GOP wants to believe. Why would the country reelect a lying, criminal authoritarian if the economy is good? Isn't it in a bad economy people turn to authoritarian governments?


As for selfish Millennials? That's a load of crap. I see no evidence Millennials are like the bulk of all those extreme right wingers who resent contributing to any social safety nets and any infrastructure they don't personally use.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Is that like Karl Rove repeating Democrat Party and got the compliant media to continue using the noun instead of the adjective, Democratic Party?:rolleyes:

But I digress.


That's what the GOP wants to believe. Why would the country reelect a lying, criminal authoritarian if the economy is good? Isn't it in a bad economy people turn to authoritarian governments?


As for selfish Millennials? That's a load of crap. I see no evidence Millennials are like the bulk of all those extreme right wingers who resent contributing to any social safety nets and any infrastructure they don't personally use.
Click to expand...

Please don't discourage Brainster. I find his repetition of right wing spin to be a good barometer of what to look for. The fact that some of them (like Coulter's lies about Democrats being the real racist party and this "red map/blue map" conspiracy) are complete lies matters not. We ignored the lies the right put forth about Hillary and Bill Clinton and they became facts through repetition.

These are memes that get repeated in the rightwingosphere. The two most prominent for the '18 elections are this one (that the Democrats are running 550 dangerously left candidates) and "The GOP Base Is Getting Mobilized By the Mueller Investigation". For the latter, the hope is that the fools who fell for Trump's lies in '16 will go "Hurr hurr! That's me. Yeah, I'm mobilized and what with that shiny new wall that Mexico paid for, Hillary Clinton in jail and having brought China down several pegs, I'm going out and vote for Aimless Shameless Blameless!"
 
Foolmewunz said:
Please don't discourage Brainster. I find his repetition of right wing spin to be a good barometer of what to look for. The fact that some of them (like Coulter's lies about Democrats being the real racist party and this "red map/blue map" conspiracy) are complete lies matters not. We ignored the lies the right put forth about Hillary and Bill Clinton and they became facts through repetition.

These are memes that get repeated in the rightwingosphere. The two most prominent for the '18 elections are this one (that the Democrats are running 550 dangerously left candidates) and "The GOP Base Is Getting Mobilized By the Mueller Investigation". For the latter, the hope is that the fools who fell for Trump's lies in '16 will go "Hurr hurr! That's me. Yeah, I'm mobilized and what with that shiny new wall that Mexico paid for, Hillary Clinton in jail and having brought China down several pegs, I'm going out and vote for Aimless Shameless Blameless!"
Click to expand...

I’ll just settle for knowing why the hilldabeast is wearing a coat in the summer? Damn does she look stupid!
 
Brainster said:
It's understandable. For many years, the convention was that red stood for the Democrats and blue for the Republicans. Sometime after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Democrats realized that perhaps red was not the best branding for them, and got the compliant media to go along with the change.
Click to expand...

Evidence? It seems there was no standard, and the 2000 election controversy stuck the current pattern in place.

Perhaps the stigma of red in those days explains why some networks changed colors— in what appeared to be random fashion—over the years. Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly wrote in 2004 that the networks alternated colors based on the party of the White House incumbent, but YouTube reveals that to be a myth.

Still, there were reversals and deviations. In 1976, when NBC debuted its mammoth electronic map, ABC News employed a small, rudimentary version that used yellow for Ford, blue for Carter and red for states in which votes had yet to be tallied. In 1980, NBC once again used red for Carter and blue for the Republican challenger, Ronald Reagan, and CBS followed suit. But ABC flipped the colors and promised to use orange for states won by John Anderson, the third-party candidate who received 6.6% of the popular vote. (Anderson carried no states, and orange seems to have gone by the wayside.) Four years later, ABC and CBS used red for Republicans and blue for Democrats, but the combination wouldn’t stick for another 16 years. During the four presidential elections Wetzel oversaw for NBC, from 1976 through 1988, the network never switched colors. Republicans were cool blue, Democrats hot red.

The reasoning was simple, he said: Great Britain.

“Without giving it a second thought, we said blue for conservatives, because that’s what the parliamentary system in London is, red for the more liberal party. And that settled it. We just did it,” said Wetzel, now retired.

Forget all that communist red stuff, he said. “It didn’t occur to us. When I first heard it, I thought, ‘Oh, that’s really silly.’ ”

When ABC produced its first large electronic map in 1980, it used red for Republicans and blue for Democrats, while CBS did the reverse, according to Wetzel. NBC stuck with its original color scheme, prompting anchor David Brinkley to say that Reagan’s victory looked like “a suburban swimming pool.”

Newspapers, in those days, were largely black and white. But two days after voters went to the polls in 2000, both the New York Times and USA Today published their first color-coded, county-by-county maps detailing the showdown between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Both papers used red for the Republican Bush, blue for the Democrat Gore.

Why?

“I just decided red begins with ‘r,’ Republican begins with ‘r.’ It was a more natural association,” said Archie Tse, senior graphics editor for the Times. “There wasn’t much discussion about it.”

Paul Overberg, a database editor who designed the map for USA Today, said he was following a trend: “The reason I did it was because everybody was already doing it that way at that point.”

And everybody had to continue doing it for a long time. The 2000 election dragged on until mid-December, until the Supreme Court declared Bush the victor. For weeks, the maps were ubiquitous.

Perhaps that’s why the 2000 colors stuck. Along with images of Florida elections officials eyeballing tiny ballot chads, the maps were there constantly, reminding us of the vast, nearly even divide between, well, red and blue voters.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
The DSA, like Bernie Sanders, is usually more "social democrat" than "democratic socialist", in spite of any self-identification. Looking at these candidates' websites, you see the usual healthcare for all, free education, anti-incarceration, $15 minimum wage, etc. Not exactly seizing the means of production. They want to call themselves socialist, because they are ironically buying into the conservative rhetoric that the current free market ideology==capitalism, and that the Scandinavian countries==socialism.
Click to expand...

The words "socialism" and "progressive" were both noted as nearly meaningless by Orwell back in the 40's.

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.
Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity, I usually refer to my politics as "roughly Scandinavia-style democratic socialist or social democrat. Look at modern center-left politics in Norway, and that's where I'm at."
 
Last edited:
logger said:
I’ll just settle for knowing why the hilldabeast is wearing a coat in the summer? Damn does she look stupid!
Click to expand...

Are you having a conversation with your spirit guide? What does this have to do with anything? When you quote a post, the response is usually somehow related.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm curious how the political parties will shake out post-Trump (assuming the proto-facism fizzles out). With the Republican party tacking further and further to the right and a growing progressive wing of the Democrats, neo-libs and never-Trumper conservatives may find they have more in common with each other than their own parties.
Click to expand...

I used to laugh and scoff at the idea of the "radical center" forming its own party, especially since it was hawked by dingbat extraordinaire Thomas Friedman, but now I'm hoping they really do it.

I have a few reasons for feeling this way, first and foremost being that it really could marginalize Trump's GOP into the fringes, ala the Whigs. Secondly, it would open up space for the Democratic Party to return to its New Deal era roots in terms of economic values and serious economic policy agendas. Third, it would be a third party not necessarily doomed because of the spoiler effect stigma, and I think being locked in to the two party system is bad for democracy.

It looks like the radical centrists might be firing their project back up again, by the way. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
 
Brainster said:
It's understandable. For many years, the convention was that red stood for the Democrats and blue for the Republicans. Sometime after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Democrats realized that perhaps red was not the best branding for them, and got the compliant media to go along with the change.
Click to expand...

Do you think that repeating an untruth is going to make it pure and whole? This is nonsense. Someone posted a link, above. Why not read it and stop repeating conservative urban legends?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom