"Progressives" Win Big Over Establishment Democrats

[Brainster]

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?

I did read the article and realize that I was apparently wrong (at least according to the media, which is always trustworthy when it comes to political issues). It is a little hard for me to correct myself before my errors are pointed out, however, so I don't appreciate the snide tone.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I did read the article and realize that I was apparently wrong (at least according to the media, which is always trustworthy when it comes to political issues). It is a little hard for me to correct myself before my errors are pointed out, however, so I don't appreciate the snide tone.

Your errors were pointed out BEFORE your latest post, which is what I was responding to - that you were re-posting the same uncredited and unsourced partisan speculation after having already been corrected.

If you find Smithsonian Magazine to be Fake News, you could've googled and found a dozen other articles. The history is well-known if you get your history from history, itself, and not from Ann Coulter. I lived through that era and remember the changing map colors depending on what network you were watching, what year it was and how advanced their color broadcasting abilities were. No Democrat Spinmeisters went to the networks and said, "Hey, we wanna be blue, okay, and you're our lap dogs so you'll make that happen for us, right?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

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."

Thanks for that citation. It's often a good to be reminded how much insight Orwell had.

As for my political ideology, I just want people to wake up and realize investing in social safety nets and infrastructure benefits everyone. Too much wealth accumulating at the top has never ended well in history.

 

[Brainster]

Your errors were pointed out BEFORE your latest post, which is what I was responding to - that you were re-posting the same uncredited and unsourced partisan speculation after having already been corrected.

Let's nail this down a little further. Are you saying that I made this same claim elsewhere and was corrected? Because I don't see how I could have been corrected BEFORE I made the error. Unless we've got some psychics on the board.

 

[logger]

Your errors were pointed out BEFORE your latest post, which is what I was responding to - that you were re-posting the same uncredited and unsourced partisan speculation after having already been corrected.

If you find Smithsonian Magazine to be Fake News, you could've googled and found a dozen other articles. The history is well-known if you get your history from history, itself, and not from Ann Coulter. I lived through that era and remember the changing map colors depending on what network you were watching, what year it was and how advanced their color broadcasting abilities were. No Democrat Spinmeisters went to the networks and said, "Hey, we wanna be blue, okay, and you're our lap dogs so you'll make that happen for us, right?"

That’s why they’re called the compliant media. It’s hilarious to watch you spin this, but the outcome is obvious.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Let's nail this down a little further. Are you saying that I made this same claim elsewhere and was corrected? Because I don't see how I could have been corrected BEFORE I made the error. Unless we've got some psychics on the board.

Bwahaha! No. My bad. I apologize. I re-quoted your first post. I must've returned to the wrong part in the thread - I'd thought I'd hit "view first unread".

Again, my apologies. It was your original post.

 

[3point14]

The not winning policy. They appear to have a policy of not winning large general elections.

That answer doesn't at all fit with your previous post at all.

 

[Brainster]

Bwahaha! No. My bad. I apologize. I re-quoted your first post. I must've returned to the wrong part in the thread - I'd thought I'd hit "view first unread".

Again, my apologies. It was your original post.

It's cool.

 

[Craig4]

That answer doesn't at all fit with your previous post at all.

How do you figure that? I didn't comment on progressive policies in my last post.

 

[dann]

Some of these folks are really, really progressive:

Yeah, right! Extreme radicals, who "share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships."

I.e. capitalism ("market mechanisms"), only without the consequences of capitalism as we know them: unequal distribution of resources, mind-numbing jobs, pollution, depletion of natural resources, gender and racial inequality and oppressive relationships.
These progressives are nothing but naïve Social Democrats.

 

[3point14]

How do you figure that? I didn't comment on progressive policies in my last post.

Okay, so here's the exchange

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.

This makes me think that you think both the progressives and the trump republicans have policies that are damaging or simply not viable, so I asked:

Could you let me know what you think the damaging policies of the progressives are?

To which..:

The not winning policy. They appear to have a policy of not winning large general elections.

This is where I become confused. "Not winning" is not a policy, as far as I can tell. I want to know why you think that progressive policies are not acceptable or viable, so I said:

That answer doesn't at all fit with your previous post at all.

And here we are.


My, possibly incorrect, interpretation is that you believe that trump republicans and progressives are espousing equally dangerous policies. I wanted to know, specifically, which of the progressive policies you think are damaging / nonviable / undesirable.


Clearly I'm missing something.



ETA: I'll even tall you where I'm coming from.

I've seen this debate, before, the 'one extreme fighting the other extreme is not good', and others I have talked to have been unable to actually point to damaging policies suggested by progressives, they just assume that, because they are extreme within the US system, they must be bad. The Overton window has traveled far, far to the right, financially, in the USA, I'm just trying to see how far.

 

[Craig4]

Okay, so here's the exchange





This makes me think that you think both the progressives and the trump republicans have policies that are damaging or simply not viable, so I asked:




To which..:





This is where I become confused. "Not winning" is not a policy, as far as I can tell. I want to know why you think that progressive policies are not acceptable or viable, so I said:





And here we are.


My, possibly incorrect, interpretation is that you believe that trump republicans and progressives are espousing equally dangerous policies. I wanted to know, specifically, which of the progressive policies you think are damaging / nonviable / undesirable.


Clearly I'm missing something.



ETA: I'll even tall you where I'm coming from.

I've seen this debate, before, the 'one extreme fighting the other extreme is not good', and others I have talked to have been unable to actually point to damaging policies suggested by progressives, they just assume that, because they are extreme within the US system, they must be bad. The Overton window has traveled far, far to the right, financially, in the USA, I'm just trying to see how far.

I don't care about progressive policies because progressives don't get past step one in general elections: win the general election. Progressives haven't been able to sell their ideas without scaring the electorate since FDR. Pushing progressive candidates in the up coming midterm is going to leave the Republicans in control of the House when what we need more than anything is a check on that Russian whore in the Whitehouse. Pennsylvania should have been the clue that moderate Democrats can win in Trump country. He was a local guy who shared the values of the region. Running a bunch of younger, Bernie Sanders is going to leave Trump unchecked.

I don't even want to think about what a far left progressive would mean for the country in 2020.

 

[kellyb]

I don't care about progressive policies because progressives don't get past step one in general elections: win the general election. Progressives haven't been able to sell their ideas without scaring the electorate since FDR. Pushing progressive candidates in the up coming midterm is going to leave the Republicans in control of the House when what we need more than anything is a check on that Russian whore in the Whitehouse. Pennsylvania should have been the clue that moderate Democrats can win in Trump country. He was a local guy who shared the values of the region. Running a bunch of younger, Bernie Sanders is going to leave Trump unchecked.

I don't even want to think about what a far left progressive would mean for the country in 2020.

Candidate Obama in 2008 ran as a far left progressive. He openly talked about preferring single payer, advocated the public option which would have been a mechanism to transition to single payer, and even said "We need to spread the wealth around."

He seemed to do ok in the general.

It's oh-so-moderate-and-centrist Clinton who couldn't even beat Trump.

 

[logger]

Candidate Obama in 2008 ran as a far left progressive. He openly talked about preferring single payer, advocated the public option which would have been a mechanism to transition to single payer, and even said "We need to spread the wealth around."

He seemed to do ok in the general.

It's oh-so-moderate-and-centrist Clinton who couldn't even beat Trump.

Obama is black and Clinton is corrupt, that’s the reason for the win and loss. At least you’re admitting Obama was far left, I can’t get any liberal here to admit that.

 

[Venom]

Obama is black and Clinton is corrupt, that’s the reason for the win and loss. At least you’re admitting Obama was far left, I can’t get any liberal here to admit that.

kellyb said Obama ran as a progressive. Going by his campaign promises you'd think he was an actual strong left social democrat, but he was effectively centrist once in office. Geezus Christ man he went out of his way to compromise with the Republicans on a number of important issues.

Of course conservatives didn't pay attention and thought he was still coming for the guns and disparaging our military.

Please try logger, just try for two seconds to read before you post.

 

[logger]

kellyb said Obama ran as a progressive. Going by his campaign promises you'd think he was an actual strong left social democrat, but he was effectively centrist once in office. Geezus Christ man he went out of his way to compromise with the Republicans on a number of important issues.

Of course conservatives didn't pay attention and thought he was still coming for the guns and disparaging our military.

Please try logger, just try for two seconds to read before you post.

She said he ran as a “far left progressive” and you hilariously admonish me for not reading. You didn’t even post the full label she put on him?

 

[logger]

kellyb said Obama ran as a progressive. Going by his campaign promises you'd think he was an actual strong left social democrat, but he was effectively centrist once in office. Geezus Christ man he went out of his way to compromise with the Republicans on a number of important issues.

Of course conservatives didn't pay attention and thought he was still coming for the guns and disparaging our military.

Please try logger, just try for two seconds to read before you post.

Then she went on by giving examples of his far left politics. WTH are you on about?

 

[Mumbles]

kellyb said Obama ran as a progressive. Going by his campaign promises you'd think he was an actual strong left social democrat, but he was effectively centrist once in office. Geezus Christ man he went out of his way to compromise with the Republicans on a number of important issues.

As an aside, I don't know what you were listening to, but Obama and Clinton were pretty close in terms of politics. Their health care plans were both based on what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts rather than single payer (which they correctly noticed would not pass through congress), they both wanted evidence-based energy strategy, they were both iffy on unionization, both were fine with refocusing on Bin Ladin when you get down to it, neither were all that dovish.

The main difference was that Clinton promised to fight against the GOP, while Obama promised to work with them as much as possible. Whether or not one was better than the other is in the end a contrafactual. Clinton *may* have strongarmed the GOP in some manner...or she may have simply angered Joe Lieberman and gotten nothing at all accomplished. And there's plenty of fertile ground there for the sort of bigoted nonsense that got Dolt 45 elected in any case, so we could easily have ended up with a similar imbecile elected in any case.

 

[kellyb]

As an aside, I don't know what you were listening to, but Obama and Clinton were pretty close in terms of politics. Their health care plans were both based on what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts rather than single payer (which they correctly noticed would not pass through congress), they both wanted evidence-based energy strategy, they were both iffy on unionization, both were fine with refocusing on Bin Ladin when you get down to it, neither were all that dovish.

You're mixing up candidate Obama of 2007/2008 with POTUS Obama.

Candidate Obama was fully opposed to Romneycare, and said of Hillary's plan "Trying to fix our health care problem by mandating insurance is like trying to fix homelessness by mandating home ownership." He ran on the public option, which was widely understood as being a door to single payer.

On unions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o
Not even iffy.

He ran as a "far left" (for the US) progressive. And it was wildly popular.

 

[Mycroft]

You do realize that there is a big difference between being politically against the far right, war-mongering, authoritarian regime in Israel and being against the Jewish religion and the people who practice it,...don't you?

One might suggest that one who sees the Israeli government as being far right, war-mongering, and authoritarian but who does not recognize that their opposition in Fatah and or Hamas is even more far right, war-mongering and authoritarian would have perceptional issues that are relevant regardless of their criticizing the Jewish religion or not.