It means they have higher standards. That's not a bad thing.
Always expect more from politicians.
They aren't going to vote for Trump. The few that do are will be no more common than those that had a Democrat choice during the primary but went Republican during the general in previous elections.
Progressives usually refers to liberals that are to the left of other liberals. So you can believe in capitalism and be a progressive, but that's not a good thing in the broader context.
Capitalism is an oppressive exploitative system that has wrecked the planet. Anyone who champions it should be viewed with skepticism.
To many of these people, Sanders is the compromise that they can build and maintain a movement around.
He's still going to bomb the middle east.
He's not going to abolish the border and immigration laws.
He's not going to abolish capitalism.
He's not going to get rid of evil organizations like the CIA or DHS.
He's not going to support Palestine (occasional criticism of Israel doesn't count)
He's against reparations.
He's still an imperialist.
He sucks.
Sanders is their choice because he's the closest to the left out of everyone running. Even if he wins, he's probably going to get little done, but in the long run shifting the overton window to the left and building a leftist populist movement is more important than continuing to rely on electoralism.
Anyone with a lick of sense here knows how bad the Republican party is, so what does it tell you that they are still such a powerful force in US politics? What does it tell you that Clinton gave way to Bush and then Obama gave way to Trump? Do people really think continuing the same pattern isn't going to give way to another Republican victory in 2028?
People can wag their finger at those voting third party of casting protest votes, but that isn't the problem. Those people don't even make up 5% of the voting population. The problem is you have a system where a party so brazenly evil as the Republican Party is, still succeeding.
Last edited by Rosa Luxemburg; 10-11-2019 at 07:54 PM.
Opinions may vary in quality.
My big article on Mariko Tamaki's Hulk & She-Hulk runs, discussing the good, bad, and its creation.
My second big article on She-Hulk, discussing Jason Aaron's focus on her in Avengers #20.
Matt Shea is back in the news which, as usual, is nothing good.
https://www.courthousenews.com/washi...lims-in-video/
Washington state Representative Matt Shea said in a video posted Thursday that the media’s exposure of his extremist ideas such as Christian dominion — which calls for Christians to control society by taking over political and cultural institutions — is a “Soviet tactic” to persecute him.
The video was published Thursday on The New American, the media arm of the John Birch Society.
“Look, Christ was crucified, died and was buried and resurrected,” Shea says on it. “He paid the price for the dominion of this earth. That’s what we believe as Christians. We’re not going to shy away from that. But they’re trying to turn that into something nefarious.”
Shea, 45, a six-term Republican, wants the state of Washington split in two. “Liberty,” a new state on the eastern side, would be ruled by biblical law.
I find definitions like this obnoxious. Invariably everyone who doesn't agree with your particular definition gets lumped in as a centrist or a conservative. Conservatives do it in reverse. Typically I find if someone resorts to this sort of thing they don't have the slightest clue about how to use the terms or the broader context in which people fall in the spectrum.
You end up weaponizing it against people in your own coalition with largely similar goals. That's political stupidity in it's truest form. It happens to be the left's calling card for defeat as well.
Warren isn't a capitalist. She's an advocate for capitalism.
A capitalist is someone who actually owns Capital.
This is a deeply problematic misunderstanding, one I think illustrated by the fact that your first and second paragraph don't seem to agree with each other.
"Progressive" is a term about one's politics, generally related to the operation of government and the laws, systems, and other features therein. "Capitalism" is how the economy is structured. While those two often overlap, there is a broad spectrum of how they would do so. One can imagine an economy free of government control of capital (capitalism) that nevertheless has significant structures and laws in place to keep money moving to all people in the economy. (progressive) One could also imagine a country wherein there is complete government control of industry and laws are passed by a government to create social castes in order to maintain order. (There are several forms of conservative socialism like this. Some religious, some military, etc) There are many possible combinations in between.
As you point out in your second paragraph (which doesn't agree at all with what you state at the beginning of the first), there ARE ways to have a capitalist economy with a great deal of government oversight and intervention. The very fact that many people don't believe that's possible has more to do with their lack of understanding about what capitalism is. The words socialism and capitalism have some very bastardized definitions out there that are deeply problematic.
I for one would not vote for a true socialist, I want a progressive capitalist. So far through human history it's demonstrated itself to be the highest standard of living with the most growth, and lowest income inequality. Everything else has either utterly failed or generated a host of problems.
“Beginning to think”? Man, in 2015-2016, I was a HUGE supporter of Bernie. I registered as a Democrat for the first time in my life after nearly twenty years as an Independent/Green/Workers Party supporter. I believed in him.
And then I started paying attention to his followers, and I lost any hope that Bernie would unite anyone. His cultists were no different to me that Trumpians. All they cared about was making sure Hillary lost, and it became so obvious by the end.
To paraphrase Gandhi’s famous quote, “I like your Bernie. I do not like your Bernie supporters. Your Bernie supporters are very unlike your Bernie.”
I don't think there's a single one of us who believed that a number of Berners who were supposedly open to 'voting for a woman but not Hillary' wouldn't turn around and start the same process all over again with Warren and, lo, there are some people living directly down to that expectation already.
My favorite part of fundamentalist Christianity is how they have embraced Orwellian doublespeak without thinking.
“Unconditional love” has all kinds of conditions, ‘Liberty’ is oppresive biblical law, ‘freedom’ is worshipping only their version of God, ‘rights’ are something god gave everyone but needed slave owners from 200+ years ago to express before we got them...
It’s freaking madness...