Page 239 of 667 FirstFirst ... 139189229235236237238239240241242243249289339 ... LastLast
Results 3,571 to 3,585 of 10005
  1. #3571
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    Except there has always been an economic nationalist part of the GOP, look at Pat Buchanan.

    The GOP is the biggest corporate power party around, but they know that is unpopular ultimately, so they have BS distractions to make themselves popular (social issue BS like being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage) the GOP is just blaming Mexico for American corporations crewing over their own workers, they use nationalism to deflect worker complaints about their bosses on to other countries, while furthering their corporate agenda. It's easy to square this circle if you look at their history and see them in the most cynical light possible.
    Who the party always made sure could go about as far as they decided he could go.

    While I do get that the "Talk" has always been an element, the actual "Walk" has always been entirely different from it.

  2. #3572
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    We have different definitions of Progressive.

    Progressivism



    By this definition, the majority of Democrats are Progressive since they all seek to progress forward and make improvements to society and the human condition. One theory of how to do it alone isn't progressive, it's just one theory. True progress comes when all ideas are considered and worked through, eventually coming up with the best solution.

    Sanders has one theory as to how to do it, but it is an old theory and it only addresses one problem. There are many other problems, each one requiring their own solutions.
    Maybe you should read the wikipedia article you linked. Because there's a whole section titled "contemporary mainstream political conception". Also that same article links to a more relevant page on "Progressivism in the United States".

    Sorry you just changed the goal posts to a discussion nobody involved in the progressive movement is having and isn't really relevant in this context. Even you would have to concede all the leaders of the progresive movement in the Democratic party are talking about political policy on terms of an economic/healthcare perspective.

    In this context the voters who claim they want a progressive have a very clear idea of what they want, and using the broadest definition of the term so you can group as many people in it as possible isn't that compelling of an argument. You aren't going to convince any of them that Biden for instance is a progressive in relation to Sanders or Warren quite frankly.

    Also you never addressed the principle of the argument. If Bernie's theory is an old theory, then why was nearly everyone on that stage basically inching as much they dared to towards his theory?

    I'd really love to see the person who across the board goes further consistenly than him.

    Again you're using the length of time he's been making the argument to say "oh it's old news and passe", when the whole party is slowly trying to meet him there because they realize that's what the people want. So

    1. No they aren't all caught up to him, so clearly the Party and the country hasn't passed his ideas by.

    2. Again all it speaks to is he has the most credibility of consistency on it.

    3. To your last point it doesn't only address one problem. It addresses our tax code, it addresses our economic system, it addresses our approach to healthcare, it addresses our foreign policy priorities, etc. I know what your getting at, in that to you he doesn't explicitely target racial issues enough (though I don't think anybody in their right mind has any real reason to believe he isn't going to push for advancements in civil rights) for you. But you can't just use the broadest use of the term progressive in one sense and then try to lump all the things he fights for as "only addressing one problem".

  3. #3573
    Guardian Empress of Earth Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    So who do you think the most progressive candidate is and how would you measure that?

    We have people like Biden who want to reset things to the past, just set the clock back to 2016 and pretend Trump is a one-off. He really comes off as out of touch old man who wants to regress the Democrats to be the party they were in the 90s, is he progressive?
    Not as much as he used to be. Everyone has their own unique brand of Progressiveness. Some are dedicated to economic Progress, others to ethical scientific Progress, some to Climate Change, others to Civil Rights, or Progressive Justice, or Progressive Health Care, or Progressive Education, or Progressive Immigration Policies ..... in the end, whomever does win will most likely take all of these and more, from everyone, and use it as the basis for creating Progressive reforms.

    Instead of worrying about which candidate is the most Progressive, I am focused on which Candidate has the intelligence and the compassion and the ability to use all of these ideas in a way to benefit everyone.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  4. #3574
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,214

    Default

    In not even remotely surprising news...

    - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...or-all-1386595

    Kamala Harris forced to clean up health insurance stance — again

    “I am a proponent of ‘Medicare for All,’” the senator clarified, adding that under her health care proposal, private insurance “will exist for supplemental coverage.”

    “So, to boil it down, Medicare for All, available to everyone if they want it, but if they have private insurance, they keep it,” Geist pressed later in the interview.

    “For supplemental. For supplemental coverage,” Harris said. “Otherwise, they're in Medicare for All.”

  5. #3575
    Incredible Member 4saken1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Ehhh that depends. People said that with Trump that as people dropped out an alternative to him would take the lead.
    Possibly. I think that if either Rubio or Cruz had not been in the race, though, along with maybe a couple other of the 16 Republican candidates, the other might have ended up being the candidate. In the beginning, Trump was winning states with barely 30% of the vote, and virtually nobody who wasn't voting for him actually liked him. It wasn't until he started getting momentum that mainstream Republicans began to get behind him.

    I realize that Warren wouldn't get all of Sanders' supporters if he backed out, but they would likely dwarf those that went to other candidates or stayed home, IMO, putting Warren much closer to Biden in the polls.
    Pull List: Animosity,Babyteeth,Birthright,Black Hammer,Black Science,Damned,Deadly Class,Descender,East of West,Eternal Empire,Hellboy,Hillbilly,I Hate Fairyland,Injustice,Kill or be Killed,Lazarus,Manifest Destiny,Outcast,Paper Girls,Rat Queens,Saga,Seven to Eternity,Sex Criminals,Southern Bastards,Star Wars,Stray Bullets,Uber,Usagi Yojimbo,all Valiant,Walking Dead,Wayward,Wicked & Divine.

  6. #3576
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Not as much as he used to be. Everyone has their own unique brand of Progressiveness. Some are dedicated to economic Progress, others to ethical scientific Progress, some to Climate Change, others to Civil Rights, or Progressive Justice, or Progressive Health Care, or Progressive Education, or Progressive Immigration Policies ..... in the end, whomever does win will most likely take all of these and more, from everyone, and use it as the basis for creating Progressive reforms.

    Instead of worrying about which candidate is the most Progressive, I am focused on which Candidate has the intelligence and the compassion and the ability to use all of these ideas in a way to benefit everyone.
    Progressivism has to be a real policy agenda that puts forward actual left-wing ideas to improve the lives of a majority of people, otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty platitudes. People want policies, not platitudes.

    To me put actually progressive policies is the only to counter right-wing populism, otherwise, you are tying one arm behind your back. Republicans are putting their all into ideological goals, are we going to do the same or just ceed half the ground to them at the start?

  7. #3577
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    People want policies, not platitudes.
    We consistently overestimate how much having actual policies matter when it comes to getting elected. If people wanted a highly progressive, policy driven platform, they were able to vote for it in 2016.

  8. #3578
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4saken1 View Post
    I don't really blame Sanders for how his supporters acted in the last Election. He himself tried to be a unifying force even though many of his supporters were still campaigning against Hillary long after the Primary was over. I do think it was a mistake for him to run again knowing that doing so would likely deepen the fissure among liberals and increase the chances of Trump winning again. This is the main reason why I'm hoping Warren will surpass him.
    The first thing he did in the first debate was say "I don't care about your emails". That was the most effective attack line on her and probably cost her the election when it came down to it between how much Trump used it and the Comey letter that spawned from it. He also flew all over the country supporting her.

    Here's the ultimate thing with Bernie that a lot of his detractors don't understand.... he is drawing from a different crowd. There is a segment on here who quite frankly

    1. Politically engaged.
    2. Views politics as binary.
    3. Have supreme loyalty to the Democratic Party in the interest of defeating the Republcan agenda.

    A huge chunk of Bernie's coaltion are young people who aren't very politically engaged unless something speaks to them and aren't just going to show up otherwise. If it's not someone like Bernie, who brought who brought them to table, they don't feel the need to just auto vote Democrat because it means beating Republicans. Likewise you have a lot of jaded people who don't believe in the system or are just turned off from politics. And to be completely blunt you have independents who like his message and will vote for him, but likewise are willing to go another way. And then you have the base of the Democratic Party that needs to be energized to turn out.

    They are a different breed than a good portion of this board who are quite frankly card carrying Democrats that are always up on every issue and always in the trenches on the fight against Republicans. They can't understand why there are people out there who support Bernie, but then don't have the same affection for the rest of the Democrats

    Also it's a disengenous argument to blame Bernie supporters when

    1. Only one side coined the term Bernie Bros and tried to make them all out to be frat boy racists mysognists to shame them.
    2. One side spent the whole election saying the DNC wasn't slanted towards Hillary, until it was proven otherise.
    3. That more Hillary supporters went to McCain in 08 than Bernie supporters didn't support Hillary. Something all the people who blame Bernie's supporters have never adequatly answered for and therefore cannot prove that it was a statistical anomaly from the norm of what typically happens in any way whatsoever.

    Like I said before, I want Warren to win because you have people herewho are the typical dug into the Democratic Party types who resent Bernie for losing an election they were convinced they had in the bag, and therefore, while I'm sure those particular posters will vote for him out of loyalty to the Party, there's more people across the board in that camp that will take that into sitting out.

    Remember when Bernie announced a lot of very disgruntled Hillary voters got #NeverBernie to trend.

    I just don't want to deal with it. Warren is as good if not better on the economy. Quite frankly, it's her pet issues and she is the most skilled and nuanced at that. She's as good on healthcare. She's on the right path on education if not just a bit more pragmantic. I overall think she's a better debater than Bernie and she has a real ability to connect without seeming abrasive (something I think Harris will struggle with as things move foreward, as I viewer her as the second best debater in the field), and she has credibility with progressives who support Bernie's wing and the centrists aren't terrified of her and there is no bad blood. I said a long time ago here, Warren and Harris would be slightly different versions of the middle ground between Bernie and Biden that would be able to build the best coalition. And as of right now she has the most comprehensive policy.

    It would be a mistake for her not to get the nom. Otherwise I just see the same infighting.

  9. #3579
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    We consistently overestimate how much having actual policies matter when it comes to getting elected. If people wanted a highly progressive, policy driven platform, they were able to vote for it in 2016.
    Exactly. Obama wasnt pounding out intricate policy ideas and Trump sure as hell wasnt either.

    Policies are far more likely to lose you votes than win you votes. The more nuanced, the more dangerous.

  10. #3580
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4saken1 View Post
    Possibly. I think that if either Rubio or Cruz had not been in the race, though, along with maybe a couple other of the 16 Republican candidates, the other might have ended up being the candidate. In the beginning, Trump was winning states with barely 30% of the vote, and virtually nobody who wasn't voting for him actually liked him. It wasn't until he started getting momentum that mainstream Republicans began to get behind him.

    I realize that Warren wouldn't get all of Sanders' supporters if he backed out, but they would likely dwarf those that went to other candidates or stayed home, IMO, putting Warren much closer to Biden in the polls.
    I don't know if that's true. I think if Cruz dropped out a good chunk would stay home because they lost their guy, a good chunk will go to Trump because he's more right winger crazy than Rubio, and then some would go to Rubio. The net of that would probably still lead to far less than the number you need to get Rubio over the hump.

    Likewise, I think it's easy to underestimate how deeply unlikeable Cruz is and how many Rubio supporters would get completely dejected at having to choose between the two and how at the time Trump probably would have looked like the less fringe option.

    Even by that late point in the game, Republicans who didn't like Trump were still hoping for a pie in the sky scenario where someone would drop out and 80% to 90% of their supporters that just wasn't realistic. It works in theory, but you can't view voters as a monolthic block who will default to a binary choice that makes sense. Even if the majority of Cruz supporters went Rubio, it's more likely a 40% Rubio, 30% Trump and 30% stay home type of split. Which by that point or anything close to that is going to still be bump for Rubio but not net enough of the same thing.

    When the field is that big, you are going to win by smaller majorities. If the first primary was today, the winner of that state isn't going to take over 50% of the vote

  11. #3581
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    We consistently overestimate how much having actual policies matter when it comes to getting elected. If people wanted a highly progressive, policy driven platform, they were able to vote for it in 2016.
    Again if Clinton was so progressive, why did she seem to have no answer (and thus ceed ground) to Trump when he attacked NAFTA? Trump told the working class that foreigners were coming to take their jobs and he was going to stop it and she said nothing to them, heck she barely campaigned in the rust belt states, she gave those Trump on a platter because she thought they were in her pocket. If she was progressive, she able to counter Trump on that, not just surrender ground to him right away on this issue.

    This whole idea that she was ''the most progressive candidate ever'' seems like a Boston Globe fluff piece that made her seem more progressive then her actual record showed, that of her being another out of touch war hawk, a corporate-backed center right career politician. People were supposed to trust that she would actually keep her supposed progressive promises, despite her record saying she wouldn't

    If Clinton and Biden are ''progressives'' despite the fact they supported the crime bill that increased incarnation rates for African Americans, supported the war in Iraq and financial deregulation, that word has no meaning.

    If you are going to accuse of ''relitigating the 2016 election'' if people think Biden is a good choice, I think it does need to be relitigated, because I think that is just repeating the mistakes of the past, rather then learning from them.

    How about this time we try to counter right populism with left-wing populism, instead of trying to counter it with vacuous Third Way nothing policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    Exactly. Obama wasnt pounding out intricate policy ideas and Trump sure as hell wasnt either.

    Policies are far more likely to lose you votes than win you votes. The more nuanced, the more dangerous.
    Why not just run Brad Pitt then?

    I think people are underestimating how people in 2016 did not like the status quo and voted for Trump simply because promised to change it, just promising to return us to the status quo, rather than changing it is the wrong way to go, the things the created Trumpism will not be addressed if that happens.
    Last edited by The Overlord; 06-28-2019 at 09:51 PM.

  12. #3582
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    We consistently overestimate how much having actual policies matter when it comes to getting elected. If people wanted a highly progressive, policy driven platform, they were able to vote for it in 2016.
    It's been that way since televised debate. Never underestimate the art of selling. It is a skill and people have made millions off making it their career. You can have the best product in the world, you have nothing if you can't effectively sell it.

    If you wanted the politican with most pedigree..

    Nixon was far more accomplished than Kennedy.

    McCain was far more accomplished than Obama.

    George HW Bush had a way better political career across the board than Clinton.

    Hillary Clinton was far more accomplished than Trump.

    Gore was had more going on in his background than GWB

    Reagan was a joke compared to Carter.

  13. #3583
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,214

    Default

    Well, this is an interesting turn...

    - https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...rs/1590226001/

    Prosecutors slam halted Flint water probe at town hall

  14. #3584
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    Again if Clinton was so progressive, why did she seem to have no answer (and thus ceed ground) to Trump when he attacked NAFTA? Trump told the working class that foreigners were coming to take their jobs and he was going to stop it and she said nothing to them, heck she barely campaigned in the rust belt states, she gave those Trump on a platter because she thought they were in her pocket. If she was progressive, she able to counter Trump on that, not just surrender ground to him right away on this issue.

    This whole idea that she was ''the most progressive candidate ever'' seems like Bostain Globe fluff piece that made her seem more progressive then her actual record showed, that of her being another out of touch war hawk, a corporate-backed center right career politician. People were supposed to trust that she would actually keep her supposed progressive promises, despite her record saying she wouldn't

    If Clinton and Biden are ''progressives'' despite the fact they supported the crime bill that increased incarnation rates for African Americans, supported the war in Iraq and financial deregulation, that word has no meaning.

    If you are going to accuse of ''relitigating the 2016 election'' if people think Biden is a good choice, I think it does need to be relitigated, because I think that is just repeating the mistakes of the past, rather then learning from them.

    How about this time we try to counter right populism with left-wing populism, instead of trying to counter it with vacuous Third Way nothing policies.
    I'm sick of relitigating 2016, but the answer to your question is that to progressively minded voters who actually cared about a progressive platform and not merely defeating Republicans, Clinton was not a progressive. She was a war hawk who was way too cozy with Wall Street and had an itchy finger for deregulation.

    Now by very low standards she was probably the most progressive canidates to the era she was in than anybody since pre 50's (maybe FDR tbh). But that was in a sense that Obama was more progressive than Bill Clinton who was more progressive than Mondale who was probably in the ballpark of Carter etc.

    The people who are part of what is understood to be the progressive movement have an idea of what that means. The people who say "I want to vote for a progressive" have a concept of what types of policies that canidate must in large part support. And if you try to change up the definition, it's just insults their intelligence.

  15. #3585
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    Again if Clinton was so progressive, why did she seem to have no answer (and thus ceed ground) to Trump when he attacked NAFTA? Trump told the working class that foreigners were coming to take their jobs and he was going to stop it and she said nothing to them, heck she barely campaigned in the rust belt states, she gave those Trump on a platter because she thought they were in her pocket. If she was progressive, she able to counter Trump on that, not just surrender ground to him right away on this issue.

    This whole idea that she was ''the most progressive candidate ever'' seems like Bostain Globe fluff piece that made her seem more progressive then her actual record showed, that of her being another out of touch war hawk, a corporate-backed center right career politician. People were supposed to trust that she would actually keep her supposed progressive promises, despite her record saying she wouldn't

    If Clinton and Biden are ''progressives'' despite the fact they supported the crime bill that increased incarnation rates for African Americans, supported the war in Iraq and financial deregulation, that word has no meaning.


    If you are going to accuse of ''relitigating the 2016 election'' if people think Biden is a good choice, I think it does need to be relitigated, because I think that is just repeating the mistakes of the past, rather then learning from them.

    How about this time we try to counter right populism with left-wing populism, instead of trying to counter it with vacuous Third Way nothing policies.



    Why not just run Brad Pitt then?

    I think people are underestimating how people in 2016 did not like the status quo and voted for Trump simply because promised to change it, just promising to return us to the status quo, rather than changing it is the wrong way to go, the things the created Trumpism will not be addressed if that happens.
    Might as well be saying "He's the greatest hitter tee ball has ever seen."

    While what your saying could technically be the case, it's not exactly groundbreaking.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •