Trump is the iceberg, the Democratic party is the Titanic, and progressives are the lifeboat

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You're the ones that pressed the losing strategy and lost, not us. The DNC was in full support of Clinton, she won and had total control over the direction of the campaign.

You still blame us..

Now Tom Perez and establishment Democrats control bringing people in and "uniting the party!". When you inevitably fail, you'll blame us. You can't take responsibility for your own failures. It wasn't progressives that lost you the vote in 2016, it was Hillary Clinton's lack of ability to entice actual progressive voters. Accepting big donor money is the problem, progressives all over the country now understand that your Wall Street ball washing hurts our cause and makes us look, rightly so, corrupt. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. The Democratic party has nowhere else to turn but to the voters they've already disenfranchised. The Democratic establishment can't turn to the voters because the voters are now privy to their tactics.

This is why they are done. They won't win em back. "But TRUMP! Tho!" isn't good enough.
Click to expand...
What kind of strategy did you follow? You sat on the sidelines but by your own admission, you did so because you knew California was in the Democratic bag for Hillary. Come on man, I'm not criticizing that, I'm just saying that you aren't being totally honest here.

You attack the wrong person. I vote progressive down the line. Never voted for a Republican. Ever. A couple of times, I've voted against a local bond but it wasn't because I'm a tax cutter. I voted against expanding a local jail because I didn't want to create more empty cells for our police to fill with nonviolent offenders. Otherwise, never have voted against an education bond but I've sure lost a number of those. I support tuition free college too.

Your wig spins on your head like a cartoon character when I say that the Democratic party is strong because it's diverse. It encompasses left and moderate right voters, unlike the other party that wins because it votes as a monolithic block. I don't think that is a winning strategy long term but they sure do have our tits in wringer now. Time for us to pull together. I'm fine with disagreements too though. There is time to get it right.

But rail on, it's entertaining. And I'm still listening.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
it's fine to want the democratic party to be more progressive, but if you're not supporting the only party that will maintain or incrementally advance progress, even in the face of a regressive party, then you are a regressive. not a progressive.

pada is a regressive.

but that works for him since he, as a white male and a "men's rights activist", only stands to gain from a regressive party.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Not interested unless you're willing to deny big donor campaign contributions
Click to expand...
What does that mean? Ever? Definitely during the primary. And I'll get out and knock on doors for them. Maybe even show up to protest somebody like Booker. But the general is a different story.

My congressmen support the repeal of Citizen's United. As did Hillary.

You won't ever see Citizen's United repealed under an GOP ruled government. You could under Democratic ruled government.

I'm not in your and @ttystikk 's corner claiming the entire system is bought, paid for and owned by big money but I certainly agree that Democracy is at risk because of corruption due to big money pacs and donors.

Oh and I don't give a shit what you do. I said it's time to come together. Not "it's time for everybody to come together." I'm OK with disagreement because I think that only through debate can we get a set of policies that make sense for the people of this country. Not everybody is going to get all they want. Probably nobody is.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What does that mean? Ever? Definitely during the primary. And I'll get out and knock on doors for them. Maybe even show up to protest somebody like Booker. But the general is a different story.

My congressmen support the repeal of Citizen's United. As did Hillary.

You won't ever see Citizen's United repealed under an GOP ruled government. You could under Democratic ruled government.

I'm not in your and @ttystikk 's corner claiming the entire system is bought, paid for and owned by big money but I certainly agree that Democracy is at risk because of corruption due to big money pacs and donors.

Oh and I don't give a shit what you do. I said it's time to come together. Not "it's time for everybody to come together." I'm OK with disagreement because I think that only through debate can we get a set of policies that make sense for the people of this country. Not everybody is going to get all they want. Probably nobody is.
Click to expand...
Bernie didn't need corporate SuperPAC money. He came within a gnat's whisker of winning the whole thing, in spite of a primary process that was rigged against outsiders.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it's fine to want the democratic party to be more progressive, but if you're not supporting the only party that will maintain or incrementally advance progress, even in the face of a regressive party, then you are a regressive. not a progressive.

pada is a regressive.

but that works for him since he, as a white male and a "men's rights activist", only stands to gain from a regressive party.
Click to expand...
I've infuriated him by saying as much. His neck wasn't on the line when he told people they shouldn't vote for Hillary because DNC. Black, Latino and poor people are feeling the pain now much more than white millennial purists. Same goes for our elders -- the ones who are on medicaid, that is.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Bernie didn't need corporate SuperPAC money. He came within a gnat's whisker of winning the whole thing, in spite of a primary process that was rigged against outsiders.
Click to expand...
True, this

I don't know why you need to bring it up, however. It's kind of irrelevant.

One of the planks in Hillary's platform was the repeal of Citizen's United. That's irrelevant too. OH WELL.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
True, this

I don't know why you need to bring it up, however. It's kind of irrelevant.

One of the planks in Hillary's platform was the repeal of Citizen's United. That's irrelevant too. OH WELL.
Click to expand...
I still think a left wing version of the Tea Party would change the game.

I mean, look at the miserable failure that turned out to be.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What does that mean? Ever? Definitely during the primary. And I'll get out and knock on doors for them. Maybe even show up to protest somebody like Booker. But the general is a different story.
Click to expand...
Yes, ever. If a politician accepts bribes, he is more likely to do the bribers bidding at the expense of the American people

It's why Clinton supported TPP as "the gold standard", why Booker supported keeping drugs more expensive, and why the war on drugs continues.
Fogdog said:
My congressmen support the repeal of Citizen's United.
Click to expand...
Isn't he special
Fogdog said:
You won't ever see Citizen's United repealed under an GOP ruled government. You could under Democratic ruled government.;
Click to expand...
No you couldn't.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it's fine to want the democratic party to be more progressive, but if you're not supporting the only party that will maintain or incrementally advance progress, even in the face of a regressive party, then you are a regressive. not a progressive.

pada is a regressive.

but that works for him since he, as a white male and a "men's rights activist", only stands to gain from a regressive party.
Click to expand...
Incrementalism got us where we are today- which is far, far to the right of where this country was 20 years ago. I agree with pada in that it's a failed strategy and that it's time for something different.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What does that mean? Ever? Definitely during the primary. And I'll get out and knock on doors for them. Maybe even show up to protest somebody like Booker. But the general is a different story.

My congressmen support the repeal of Citizen's United. As did Hillary.

You won't ever see Citizen's United repealed under an GOP ruled government. You could under Democratic ruled government.

I'm not in your and @ttystikk 's corner claiming the entire system is bought, paid for and owned by big money but I certainly agree that Democracy is at risk because of corruption due to big money pacs and donors.

Oh and I don't give a shit what you do. I said it's time to come together. Not "it's time for everybody to come together." I'm OK with disagreement because I think that only through debate can we get a set of policies that make sense for the people of this country. Not everybody is going to get all they want. Probably nobody is.
Click to expand...
How else to explain a sitting AG who perjured himself to Congress? That's just the most recent blatant example.

I simply disagree with your assertion that politics and government in this country isn't basically corrupt. It has become a pay to play system and therefore bought and paid for by those with the money. To be clear, that isn't you and it isn't me. This country is no longer meeting the need of the vast majority of its citizens, only those few with high net worth.
 
Last edited:
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
It depends on how you are defining 'progressive'. If you're defining it as a Democrat who supports things like LGBT rights, abortion rights, or the legalization of marijuana, I'd say most of the Democratic members of the house and senate are 'progressive'.

If you're defining it as a Democrat who supports campaign finance reform, regulating the financial industry, or raising the corporate tax rate and ending corporate welfare, I'd say very few of the Democratic members of the house and senate are 'progressive', maybe a handful, less than 10%.

In my opinion, if you support all the things in the first example, but none of the things in the second example, you're not an actual progressive.
Click to expand...
OK, so your beliefs have been repeatedly stated.

But if only 10% of the Democrats come under your definition of progressive, how do you see the next 10 years in politics? You can't seriously see things changing that much.

We won the popular vote with the party as is. 3 key states swung the election by the narrowest of margins. Democrats won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections, but only had 2 wins.

Some of your ideas will ultimately prevail in 20 - 50 years. Not by 2020.

It's fine to want a more progressive party. It's a pipe dream to think it going to happen quickly.

And again, you vote for an adminstration, not just a president.
Once elected, the president is just one branch of gov't., not a king.

I have many progressive (by your definition) friends.

None of them berated the Democrats before the election because they didn't like Mrs. Clinton, or that she wasn't progressive enough. They looked around at the political landscape and decided this is who we have right now, and she is better than Trump and his fake news.

How would Bernie be doing right now with this congress, as far as passing through a progressive (by your definition) agenda?

How would Hillary be doing right now with this congress, as far as passing through a establishment (by your definition) agenda?

When your 10% estimation of progressives (by your definition) hits 50%, we'll have some leverage. IF we can control congress.

20-50 years away. We likely will never see it. That isn't pessimism, that's reality. And that's politics. And with less good high paying jobs, we're losing the necessary tax base to fund things. I don't see anybody in power on board to raise taxes on those who could afford it.
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Bernie didn't need corporate SuperPAC money. He came within a gnat's whisker of winning the whole thing, in spite of a primary process that was rigged against outsiders.
Click to expand...
And by whom was it rigged? Hillary's bulldog itch wasserman-schultz. somehow, the diehard hil lovers failed to see that and still feel she should be president. :wall:
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
OK, so your beliefs have been repeatedly stated.

But if only 10% of the Democrats come under your definition of progressive, how do you see the next 10 years in politics? You can't seriously see things changing that much.

We won the popular vote with the party as is. 3 key states swung the election by the narrowest of margins. Democrats won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections, but only had 2 wins.

Some of your ideas will ultimately prevail in 20 - 50 years. Not by 2020.

It's fine to want a more progressive party. It's a pipe dream to think it going to happen quickly.

And again, you vote for an adminstration, not just a president.
Once elected, the president is just one branch of gov't., not a king.

I have many progressive (by your definition) friends.

None of them berated the Democrats before the election because they didn't like Mrs. Clinton, or that she wasn't progressive enough. They looked around at the political landscape and decided this is who we have right now, and she is better than Trump and his fake news.

How would Bernie be doing right now with this congress, as far as passing through a progressive (by your definition) agenda?

How would Hillary be doing right now with this congress, as far as passing through a establishment (by your definition) agenda?

When your 10% estimation of progressives (by your definition) hits 50%, we'll have some leverage. IF we can control congress.

20-50 years away. We likely will never see it. That isn't pessimism, that's reality. And that's politics. And with less good high paying jobs, we're losing the necessary tax base to fund things. I don't see anybody in power on board to raise taxes on those who could afford it.
Click to expand...
Your solution is to simply shrug and continue to support a political machine that doesn't respond to your needs.

That's not my idea of a solution.

A left wing version of the Tea Party would win in a landslide. After all, the right wing version had less sorry and look where the Republicans are today? Hint; EVERYWHERE.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
You can either support workers or corporations. You can't support both

This is the fundamental problem facing the establishment wing of the Democratic party; they want to court big donors, but when they do, they fail to represent their progressive base, so they abandon them

Keep taking corporate bribes and keep losing or turn to the voters and give them an actual progressive reason to vote for you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top