All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[The Overlord]

I didn't say that, of course, and it wasn't my point. She had an extremely progressive policy platform which, if policies mattered like people want to say they did, her actually very detailed policies should have mattered more but instead even now we have people talking caricature and character over policy because 'prison industrial complex!'.

Policy is nice. Having a plan is nice for those of us who give a crap about it but most people pretty obviously don't.

But if the policy is not the focus, then what is? If policy does not matter, why not nominate Brad Pitt to take on Trump?


Some fluff piece in the Boston Globe said she had the most ''progress policy platform ever'', why should people assume that was anything but a bunch of empty promises based on her record? Was she a progressive when she decided to support the invasion of Iraq?

[The Overlord]

You can argue that H. Clinton is an uncharismatic policy nerd with a ton of (largely smear campaign induced) baggage, but those who claim she was not running on a progressive platform in 2016 was not really paying attention.

She had the substance. Trump had style in his fast-talking grifter way (and quite likely outside help). The latter squeaked by while losing the popular vote.

So her record means nothing? Here's the problem, people can say they running as a progressive and then implement a corporate center-right agenda when in office.

Was Clinton progressive when supported the 1994 crime bill? Was she progressive when she supported wars in Iraq and Lybia? Does her record mean nothing, because her record makes her as an opportunist, not a progressive.

How does the election of a one-term representative somehow represent a "progressive" sea-change in national politics unless you refuse to admit that your anecdotal example (and political ideology) isn't equally effective in every other national race?

I never said they can't get elected -- just that I don't I don't see where Americans are voting for them or their policies enough to attack "moderate" Democrats for not being more progressive when it might cost them the general election to do so.

This isn't even something to be argued -- this is something to be proven at the same ballot box where moderate Democrats have already dominated for decades.

Your argument isn't with me -- it's with the American voter.

How often has the Democratic party actually implemented a progressive platform, rather than running on one and implementing some neoliberal corporate centrists stuff instead?

Maybe an actual progressive agenda would be more popular than a bunch of style with no substance to back it up?

The GOP actually serves its base, the Dems cannot seem to be bothered to do the same, is it any wonder one side is better at voter turn out then the other?

Hillary's defeat should be seen as a learning experience, not an excuse to bury your head in the sand.

[Theleviathan]

You are the only one who see this as an "Argument..."

I'm just pointing out that someone who seems like they can look at Omar's election and say "That might represent an anecdotal example..." should be able to think the same thought about what is clearly a single mid-term election.

When was the last election progressives dominated? His point isn't an anecdote for any one election, it's been true for a long time. If you disagree, you're going to have to point to a significant share of progressive wins. I'd be curious to see when that happened, because it hasn't been in the last 20 years taht I can recall.

Omar? She won a highly progressive Minnesota district. I'm glad she did and I'm glad they ran that kind of candidate there where she could win. Minnesota also has a Democrat, a moderate, who won the 7th congressional district (the western third of the state from border to border). Omar would've had ZERO chance of winning that district. So it's far better to run someone like Peterson, take that seat, and be very happy with a moderate Dem.

The truth is there are far more districts for the House and states for the Senate, where a moderate has the best chance than a progressive. If that's to change the minds of voters have to be changed. Personally, I don't think that time is now and the stakes are too high to gamble on it. If the electorate rallies behind a progressive, I'm in. But if they don't...the progressive wing needs to grow up, shut up, and fight another day.

[aja_christopher]

You are the only one who see this as an "Argument..."

I'm just pointing out that someone who seems like they can look at Omar's election and say "That might represent an anecdotal example..." should be able to think the same thought about what is clearly a single mid-term election.

I never said progressives can't win elections -- I said that I see moderates actually winning most of the elections and then attempting to pass progressive legislation only to be (repeatedly) blocked by Republicans.

And people like you repeatedly trying to promote your ideals over everyone else's instead of just accepting that the Democratic party is for moderates as well as progressives, especially since they are the ones getting enough votes to actually pass progressive legislation.

When they aren't being blocked by Republicans.

[aja_christopher]

How often has the Democratic party actually implemented a progressive platform, rather than running on one and implementing some neoliberal corporate centrists stuff instead?

How often has the American public voted those "progressive" candidates into Congress and the Presidency?

[The Overlord]

How often has the American public voted those "progressive" candidates into Congress and the Presidency?

I think that is a question with a more complex answer then you would assume. how deep down the rabbit hall you want to get? Maybe people now are willing to accept left-wing policies now, then in the past?

Are these left-wing policies popular or unpopular?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfIcTFsDbBc


How popular is the third-way center-right corporate ''policy agenda''?

Some people keep on saying ''how can we pay for Medicare for all?'' But they cannot answer why Canada spends less of its GDP on Health Care then the US? They cannot justify this current system.

Heck if corporate Democrats like Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden are so concerned with the debt, why do they support military adventures like the war in Iraq? How much money

Do you want someone who fights what is right no matter what or some loser who just bases everything on the latest poll numbers?

Are these policies unpopular with the voters or the doners?

[aja_christopher]

I think that is a question with a more complex answer then you would assume. how deep down the rabbit hall you want to get?

Not deep at all -- I've already made my point about infighting and I'll leave you to it if that's your thing.

[The Overlord]

Not deep at all -- I've already made my point about infighting and I'll leave you to it if that's your thing.

You ignored everything else I said to give me a non-answer?

What is so great about Clinton/Bidden third way corporate nothing agenda? Why is it good or popular? Can you defend these policies?

Why was the 1994 crime bill a good policy? Why was supporting the Iraq War a good policy? Heck why does Canada spend less on Health Care then the US, why can't Clinton or Biden support a singler payer system when it costs less and delivers better results.

I have seen no one able to defend the policies of Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden in any sort of deep way, I just keep hearing '' Hillary Clinton had the most progressive policy ever'', but cannot go into detail about that.

Tell me how is Joe Biden's or Hilary Clinton's platform, better than that of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? Can you go into that?

[aja_christopher]

You ignored everything else I said to give me a non-answer?

What is so great about Clinton/Bidden third way corporate nothing agenda? Why is it good or popular? Can you defend these policies?

Nothing for me to defend since the American voters are the ones putting these individuals in office -- not to say "progressives" like Warren don't have a chance but so far neither she nor Sanders have even won the primary, much less the general election, much less re-election, and that's assuming they have a Congress that is progressive enough to ratify their key legislation.

And like I said before -- "moderates" would have passed even more progressive legislation over the years (including universal health care back in 1993 as led by Hillary Clinton) if the Republicans didn't block it every time it comes up for a vote.

Moderates like "Biden" and "Clinton" and "Obama" aren't the ones impeding a progressive agenda -- Republicans are.

[The Overlord]

Nothing for me to defend since the American voters are the ones putting these individuals in office.

But are the politicians bothering to present the voters with every option or are they only presenting them with options their donors approve of?

What should we not bother fighting for things that important or should we just let the GOP set the agenda and ceed most of the ground to them from the start?

What is your evidence to say ''Medicare for all is unpopular'', are you going to give me a real answer or a one sentence answer?

Jim Crow was popular at one time, imagine if people did nothing about it because it was popular. Are we fighting for what is right or supporting what is popular?

Nothing for me to defend since the American voters are the ones putting these individuals in office.

And like I said before -- they would have passed even more progressive legislation over the years (including universal health care back in 1993 as led by Hillary Clinton) if the Republicans didn't block it every time it comes up for a vote.

Moderates like "Biden" and "Clinton" and "Obama" aren't the ones impeding a progressive agenda -- Republicans are.

If they are willing to cede ground to the GOP on things like the Iraq war, they are not of the solution, of these 3, only Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start.

Heck Obama had the chance to ramp down the national security state and he didn't. he did nothing to stop the government spying program, what is the point of these politicians if they cannot do the minimum?

[aja_christopher]

If they are willing to cede ground to the GOP on things like the Iraq war, they are not of the solution.

Okay.

Later.

[The Overlord]

Okay.

Later.

Really another one sentence answer? I stand by my premise that you cannot defend the policies of Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton in any sort of deep way because there is nothing there.

You opting out of this debate proves I am right.

I have not seen anyone able to defend Joe Biden or Hilary Clinton policy platform, which reinforces my suspicions they are corporate hacks who just obey their donors rather than being real progressives who take risks.

Should we examine these people's policy platforms in a deep way or not?

If Joe Biden becomes President and he ''reaches across the aisle'' to pass a bill to keep these ICE camps on the border open because they ''create jobs''. will he still be a progressive? You think I am being glib, but a corporate democrat ''reaching across the aisle'' means caving into the GOP, they never show the same consideration.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Really another one sentence answer? I stand by my premise that you cannot defend the policies of Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton in any sort of deep way because there is nothing there.

You opting out of this debate proves I am right.

He does this alot, he passes his opinion off as facts and then when he's pushed on it he just pretends he's above the discussion he freely engaged in. It's silly should have kept him on blocl. Learned my lesson.

Either way you are mostly correct. Medicare for All is extremely popular. It polls unbelievably well. Taxing the rich more polls well overall and even amongs the wealthy. Eliminating college debt? You'd win the millenial generations loyalty for decades. There's no proof to be shown that they are unpopular positions. And when you have 20 Democrats on stage, most of whom never supported anywhere near those policies all trying to get as close as they dared to them, it kind of undercuts any notion that they are unpopular.

[aja_christopher]

You opting out of this debate proves I am right.

No -- it just proves I don't have to argue with you.

You're just as welcome not to support "moderate" Democrats because they don't suit your political agenda as I am to support them because they actually win elections and pass "progressive" legislation.

Unless you believe that people have to agree with your political views regardless of their own personal perspective, you're not "right" -- you're just another self-entitled "progressive" who thinks the Democratic party owes him something.

[Theleviathan]

He does this alot, he passes his opinion off as facts and then when he's pushed on it he just pretends he's above the discussion he freely engaged in. It's silly should have kept him on blocl. Learned my lesson.

Either way you are mostly correct. Medicare for All is extremely popular. It polls unbelievably well. Taxing the rich more polls well overall and even amongs the wealthy. Eliminating college debt? You'd win the millenial generations loyalty for decades. There's no proof to be shown that they are unpopular positions. And when you have 20 Democrats on stage, most of whom never supported anywhere near those policies all trying to get as close as they dared to them, it kind of undercuts any notion that they are unpopular.

And yet, if you put that much stock into polls, Biden has lead even before he joined the race......

People don't vote for positions or policies. They vote for rhetoric and impressions. And, historically speaking, they don't vote for progressives.