• 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.

Trump's Second Term

Jack by the hedge said:
I have absolutely no idea. From outside the US the Dems have sunk into total invisibility. I wonder if that's the same at home too.

My point wasn't about the failings of the Dems though it was about the amazing weirdness of the alt-right culture the shooter seems to have emerged from.
Click to expand...
I can point blank tell you you are wrong. The Dems are getting pleny of news space.
 
stanfr said:
If there's any hope for the future, it is gonna have to come from a populist progressive. Someone like Bernie only without the political baggage.
No party right now is seizing on the enormous anger and despair of Gen Z, and the bottom 98%-- he who figures that out will find a winning platform.
Click to expand...

I disagree strongly. I hate populism in any form. In the end, it is always a case that the mob loves to destroy anybody smarter then they are.
Also, defiend progressive. If progressive mean anti capitialist..somebody hostiler to a market economy and private business being the prime engine of an economy, count me out. The alternative.....let the govement run everything....has been tried and has always failed miserably.
Call me a non lassez faire Capitalist. i thik the wealthy should pay their fair share, beleive in a strong safetey net, and that the power of huge coporations needs to be curbed. (and a major reason I think this is because all powerful corporations are damaging to a truly free makeet.....but I not thrilled with traditional Socialism.
We need to look beyond the Dogma, to more pramatic solutions.
 
dudalb said:
I disagree strongly. I hate populism in any form. In the end, it is always a case that the mob loves to destroy anybody smarter then they are.
Also, defiend progressive. If progressive mean anti capitialist..somebody hostiler to a market economy and private business being the prime engine of an economy, count me out. The alternative.....let the govement run everything....has been tried and has always failed miserably.
Call me a non lassez faire Capitalist. i thik the wealthy should pay their fair share, beleive in a strong safetey net, and that the power of huge coporations needs to be curbed. (and a major reason I think this is because all powerful corporations are damaging to a truly free makeet.....but I not thrilled with traditional Socialism.
We need to look beyond the Dogma, to more pramatic solutions.
Click to expand...


I define a progressive as anyone who wants everyone to be treated equally... oh, that and world peace.
 
dudalb said:
I disagree strongly. I hate populism in any form. In the end, it is always a case that the mob loves to destroy anybody smarter then they are.
Also, defiend progressive. If progressive mean anti capitialist..somebody hostiler to a market economy and private business being the prime engine of an economy, count me out. The alternative.....let the govement run everything....has been tried and has always failed miserably.
Call me a non lassez faire Capitalist. i thik the wealthy should pay their fair share, beleive in a strong safetey net, and that the power of huge coporations needs to be curbed. (and a major reason I think this is because all powerful corporations are damaging to a truly free makeet.....but I not thrilled with traditional Socialism.
We need to look beyond the Dogma, to more pramatic solutions.
Click to expand...


Did you know that the reason corporations are considered people is not because a judge ruled they were, but because some clerk added it to his decision.

I can look up the source if you want, but I'm lazy today.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
NBC News: The 5th Amendment says everyone deserves due process

Donald Trump: It might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967982440250565090
Click to expand...
That's great- a US President who thinks that Due Process is inconvenient and burdensome for his desire to just willy-nilly do what he wants with people and seems incapable of grasping that that's its ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point. Trump is not a very bright man (and that's being generous), but this is just willful and dangerous stupidity on the part of someone in a position to impose his deliberate ignorance as policy.
 
turingtest said:
That's great- a US President who thinks that Due Process is inconvenient and burdensome for his desire to just willy-nilly do what he wants with people and seems incapable of grasping that that's its ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point. Trump is not a very bright man (and that's being generous), but this is just willful and dangerous stupidity on the part of someone in a position to impose his deliberate ignorance as policy.
Click to expand...
Oh, he knows. With MAGA, never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice.
 
dudalb said:
Also, defiend progressive. If progressive mean anti capitialist..somebody hostiler to a market economy and private business being the prime engine of an economy, count me out. The alternative.....let the govement run everything....has been tried and has always failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Progressivism in the United States is a nice place to start if you wanted to actually understand progressives, instead of the random bashing you've often done. Progressivism certainly doesn't have a spotless history, but much of the maligning of Progressives betrays ignorance more than anything else.

Things like this are notable because your focus is on economic matters here -

Specific economic policies that are considered progressive include progressive taxes, income redistribution aimed at reducing inequalities of wealth, a comprehensive package of public services, universal health care, resisting involuntary unemployment, public education, social security, minimum wage laws, antitrust laws, legislation protecting labor rights, and the rights of labor unions.
Click to expand...

Overall, progressivism is -

Middle/working class and reformist in nature, it arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations, pollution, and corruption in American politics.
Click to expand...

I'll be simple and clear. Progressivism is NOT communism and is generally opposed to the command economies that you want to tar it with. On the opposite end of of the spectrum, it's not fundamentally opposed to the existence of massive corporations and the like, but strongly supports regulating them so their actual power doesn't get out of hand. Incidentally, that's one of the big reasons why there's so much hostility towards Progressives. Big corporations fight against having their power curbed and certain groups lap up their propaganda.


dudalb said:
Call me a non lassez faire Capitalist. i thik the wealthy should pay their fair share, beleive in a strong safetey net, and that the power of huge coporations needs to be curbed. (and a major reason I think this is because all powerful corporations are damaging to a truly free makeet.....but I not thrilled with traditional Socialism.
We need to look beyond the Dogma, to more pramatic solutions.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, what you describe there sounds remarkably like your stances would qualify as Progressive stances just fine.

Overall, most progressive policy positions are very popular with the public. Not all, sure, but most of them. It's just too bad that policy tends to fall by the wayside as rich and powerful propagandists demonize and denigrate the group by any means that they can. Progressives are pretty much the only actually notable anti-corruption faction in the US, after all, and that makes them a threat to the corrupt.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
I define a progressive as anyone who wants everyone to be treated equally... oh, that and world peace.
Click to expand...
Wow, private definations. Standard definition of a Progressive goes way beyond all people being treated equal to all people being equal, which is impossible. And, sadly, same goes for world peace.
 
Aridas said:
Progressivism in the United States is a nice place to start if you wanted to actually understand progressives, instead of the random bashing you've often done. Progressivism certainly doesn't have a spotless history, but much of the maligning of Progressives betrays ignorance more than anything else.

Things like this are notable because your focus is on economic matters here -



Overall, progressivism is -



I'll be simple and clear. Progressivism is NOT communism and is generally opposed to the command economies that you want to tar it with. On the opposite end of of the spectrum, it's not fundamentally opposed to the existence of massive corporations and the like, but strongly supports regulating them so their actual power doesn't get out of hand. Incidentally, that's one of the big reasons why there's so much hostility towards Progressives. Big corporations fight against having their power curbed and certain groups lap up their propaganda.




Interestingly enough, what you describe there sounds remarkably like your stances would qualify as Progressive stances just fine.

Overall, most progressive policy positions are very popular with the public. Not all, sure, but most of them. It's just too bad that policy tends to fall by the wayside as rich and powerful propagandists demonize and denigrate the group by any means that they can. Progressives are pretty much the only actually notable anti-corruption faction in the US, after all, and that makes them a threat to the corrupt.
Click to expand...
Not from a lot of the rhetoric I hear from some prominent progressives; They seem to have basic dislike for private business.]
We have a real problem with definations here.
Like what is the difference between a Liberal and Progressive; there obviously is a differentc.
I just don;t trust the boundless fiath many progressives have in government, just as I don;t trust the boundless faith many on the right have in big business and religion.
 
Aridas said:
Progressivism in the United States is a nice place to start if you wanted to actually understand progressives, instead of the random bashing you've often done. Progressivism certainly doesn't have a spotless history, but much of the maligning of Progressives betrays ignorance more than anything else.

Things like this are notable because your focus is on economic matters here -



Overall, progressivism is -



I'll be simple and clear. Progressivism is NOT communism and is generally opposed to the command economies that you want to tar it with. On the opposite end of of the spectrum, it's not fundamentally opposed to the existence of massive corporations and the like, but strongly supports regulating them so their actual power doesn't get out of hand. Incidentally, that's one of the big reasons why there's so much hostility towards Progressives. Big corporations fight against having their power curbed and certain groups lap up their propaganda.




Interestingly enough, what you describe there sounds remarkably like your stances would qualify as Progressive stances just fine.

Overall, most progressive policy positions are very popular with the public. Not all, sure, but most of them. It's just too bad that policy tends to fall by the wayside as rich and powerful propagandists demonize and denigrate the group by any means that they can. Progressives are pretty much the only actually notable anti-corruption faction in the US, after all, and that makes them a threat to the corrupt.
Click to expand...
Gross exagerration.
 
dudalb said:
Wow, private definations. Standard definition of a Progressive goes way beyond all people being treated equal to all people being equal, which is impossible. And, sadly, same goes for world peace.
Click to expand...


I agree, but you just asked for a definition and didn't specify that it had to be universal.

My apologies.

BTW, I myself would never believe that anything is impossible with humans, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.
 
dudalb said:
I just don;t trust the boundless fiath many progressives have in government, just as I don;t trust the boundless faith many on the right have in big business and religion.
Click to expand...
I would substitute 'liberal' for progressive in this sentence. Progressive to me (call it a 'private' definition if you like) means what it says on its face--moving forward. Probably why movements like Andrew Yang's 'forward' party are fine calling themselves progressive. It's a simple acknowledgement that the end-stage capitalism we are in has been an abject failure.
So, if I may ask, who or what do you trust?
 

Dr.Sid said:
Oh Democrats failed more than that. They also completely gave up on the media space. Who is leading Democrats these days anyway ?
Click to expand...
That's one of the problems with the American political system. There is no 'leader' of they don't have the presidency. There is no leader of the opposition. Trump took on that role from Mar a Lago unilaterally. Republicans just went along with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom