HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hey all you political rea...

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:46 AM

Hey all you political realists out there!

What policies do the "far left" support that you don't? Last time I checked abortion rights, fighting for equality, a better healthcare system, reforming drug laws and environmental conservation were main stream democratic ideas. So where is the disconnect?

56 replies, 4066 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hey all you political realists out there! (Original post)
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 OP
djean111 Nov 2014 #1
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #2
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #3
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #5
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #7
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #8
librechik Nov 2014 #49
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #53
mythology Nov 2014 #13
TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #35
Warren Stupidity Nov 2014 #6
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #9
Mojorabbit Nov 2014 #51
hrmjustin Nov 2014 #4
baldguy Nov 2014 #10
Bluenorthwest Nov 2014 #14
baldguy Nov 2014 #17
LWolf Nov 2014 #30
baldguy Nov 2014 #31
LWolf Nov 2014 #32
baldguy Nov 2014 #34
LWolf Nov 2014 #37
baldguy Nov 2014 #39
LWolf Nov 2014 #45
baldguy Nov 2014 #46
LWolf Nov 2014 #47
baldguy Nov 2014 #50
LWolf Nov 2014 #52
treestar Nov 2014 #11
Bluenorthwest Nov 2014 #16
treestar Nov 2014 #38
wyldwolf Nov 2014 #12
Bluenorthwest Nov 2014 #15
wyldwolf Nov 2014 #19
JoePhilly Nov 2014 #23
treestar Nov 2014 #41
moriah Nov 2014 #27
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #18
wyldwolf Nov 2014 #21
moriah Nov 2014 #29
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #40
brooklynite Nov 2014 #20
wyldwolf Nov 2014 #22
treestar Nov 2014 #42
LadyHawkAZ Nov 2014 #24
MisterP Nov 2014 #25
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #26
wyldwolf Nov 2014 #28
LostInAnomie Nov 2014 #36
treestar Nov 2014 #43
seveneyes Nov 2014 #33
Donald Ian Rankin Nov 2014 #44
bhikkhu Nov 2014 #48
Hari Seldon Nov 2014 #54
gwheezie Nov 2014 #55
gwheezie Nov 2014 #56

Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:48 AM

1. Bwahahaha! Those policies are so old-fashioned Left Wing glitter-shitting ponies!

 

Get with the program!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:50 AM

2. Its not that we don't support them....DUH!

 

its that we are realists....we understand the big picture....we know what is possible...the Rightwingers and the Mushy Middle do not just disappear....we don't wear rose colored glasses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:51 AM

3. But these are ideas that most Americans support

Poll after poll. The trend is going towards the direction of more and more people supporting these ides. What's the fucking problem with supporting candidates who support these ideas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:53 AM

5. it fucking doesn't matter....WE know how they vote.

 

and by the way....I do support a candidate that does..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:56 AM

7. Progressive policies have overwhelming support.

Progressives aren't the ones not living in realty. It's the democrats who are convinced they can keep winning elections by stealing conservatives from the republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:02 AM

8. "Progressive Policies" will not be a name on a Ballot.

 

that's reality.....you should have learned that from the recent election. That is called reality my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:28 AM

49. sure. By "the People." Who the hell cares one tiny sh*t about them?

Those policies are not liked by the 1%. Therefore, no progress will ever be made on them (from now on, until the revolution, which won't help either)

We don't have representative government. We are owned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:12 PM

53. i am not owned....I am Democrat by choice..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:43 AM

13. The problem is that while voters keep polling that way, and keep voting for ballot measures,

 

they also keep voting for Republican candidates. Look at the difference between the minimum wage increase and Mark Pryor in Arkansas. The voters chose to both vote for a minimum wage increase and for the guy from the party that wants to do away with the minimum wage.

It's not nearly so simple as to say just nominate a more liberal candidate. Because if that were the case, and the voters are rational, they would vote for the candidate that most closely represents their preferred position, which based on the minimum wage increase vote, seems to be more liberal. You can't make a viable argument that Pryor's opponent was or is more likely to support a minimum wage increase federally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:39 PM

35. Probably didn't help Pryor was against the minimum wage increase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:55 AM

6. so you don't really "support them".

 

because you "understand the big picture". So instead you support programs and policies that do the opposite. In order it seems to "get along" with political ideologies completely opposed to core liberal values. And then you wonder why the Democratic voters don't get all enthusiastic about voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:03 AM

9. uh What?

 

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale) Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases: Favors topic 1
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too: Favors topic 1
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania: Strongly Favors topic 1
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice: Favors topic 1
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose: Favors topic 1
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare: Favors topic 1
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion: Favors topic 1
Supports parental notice & family planning: Opposes topic 1
No abortion for sex selection in China: Opposes topic 1
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus: Favors topic 1
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women: Favors topic 1
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record: Strongly Favors topic 1
Expand embryonic stem cell research: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims: Favors topic 1
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities: Favors topic 1
Ensure access to and funding for contraception: Favors topic 1
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception: Favors topic 1
NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP: Favors topic 1
NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime: Favors topic 1
YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives: Favors topic 1
NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions: Favors topic 1
YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Favors topic 1
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale) Some world leaders are still misogynistic: Favors topic 2
We’ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go: Strongly Favors topic 2
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now: Favors topic 2
Human rights are women’s rights: Neutral on topic 2
Women’s rights are human rights: Favors topic 2
OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism": Strongly Favors topic 2
Equal pay is not yet equal: Strongly Favors topic 2
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action: Strongly Favors topic 2
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all: Neutral on topic 2
Sponsored bill maintaining role of women in armed forces: Favors topic 2
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Favors topic 2
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery: Strongly Favors topic 2
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 2
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements: Favors topic 2
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue: Favors topic 2
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination: Strongly Favors topic 2
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale) Increase America’s commitment against Global AIDS: Favors topic 3
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union: Strongly Favors topic 3
I support gay marriage personally and as law: Strongly Favors topic 3
Let states decide gay marriage; they’re ahead of feds: Favors topic 3
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex: Strongly Favors topic 3
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards: Favors topic 3
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits: Strongly Favors topic 3
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees: Strongly Favors topic 3
YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale) Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones: Strongly Favors topic 4
Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases: Favors topic 4
Community involvement helps, but only in short term: Favors topic 4
Link payments to good parenting behavior: Opposes topic 4
Allow student prayer, but no religious instruction: Opposes topic 4
Character education: teach empathy & self-discipline: Favors topic 4
Change what kids see in the media: Favors topic 4
Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning: Favors topic 4
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation: Strongly Opposes topic 4
NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration: Opposes topic 4
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale) Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites: Favors topic 5
Lower costs and improve quality and cover everybody: Strongly Favors topic 5
Supply more medical needs of families, & insure all children: Strongly Favors topic 5
Medicare should be strengthened today: Favors topic 5
Smaller steps to progress on health care: Favors topic 5
Guaranteed benefits & focus on prevention: Neutral on topic 5
2006: If I can't do universal coverage, why run?: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term: Strongly Favors topic 5
We need a uniquely American solution to health care: Favors topic 5
Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate: Strongly Favors topic 5
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care: Favors topic 5
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage: Favors topic 5
Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations: Opposes topic 5
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record: Strongly Favors topic 5
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn: Strongly Favors topic 5
NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium: Favors topic 5
NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit: Favors topic 5
NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit: Opposes topic 5
YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics: Favors topic 5
YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug: Strongly Favors topic 5
YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D: Favors topic 5
NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000: Opposes topic 5
YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Favors topic 5
YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare: Favors topic 5
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale) 1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Social Security protects families, not just retirees: Strongly Opposes topic 6
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency: Opposes topic 6
Create Retirement Savings Accounts: Favors topic 6
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 6
NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security: Opposes topic 6
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale) OpEd: Common Core recycled from Clintons in 1980s and 1990s: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fully fund special education & 21st century classrooms: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice; but not private nor parochial: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers drain money from public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Charter schools provide choice within public system: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Parents can choose, but support public schools: Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice and charter schools: Favors topic 7
Solemn vow never to abandon our public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice: Opposes topic 7
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes: Strongly Opposes topic 7
YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies: Opposes topic 7
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale) $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package: Opposes topic 8
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles: Opposes topic 8
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes: Strongly Opposes topic 8
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up: Opposes topic 8
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act: Opposes topic 8
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale) Longtime advocate of death penalty, with restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Address the unacceptable increase in incarceration: Opposes topic 9
Mandatory sentences have been too widely used: Strongly Opposes topic 9
Give kids after-school activities to prevent gangs: Opposes topic 9
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence: Opposes topic 9
Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You’re-Out: Favors topic 9
Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison: Strongly Favors topic 9
End hate crimes and other intolerance: Favors topic 9
Require DNA testing for all federal executions: Opposes topic 9
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program: Opposes topic 9
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance: Strongly Opposes topic 9
YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program: Opposes topic 9
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale) Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers: Opposes topic 10
Get assault weapons & guns off the street: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre: Opposes topic 10
Congress’ failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run: Opposes topic 10
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs: Opposes topic 10
License and register all handgun sales: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Gun control protects our children: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Lock up guns; store ammo separately: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons: Opposes topic 10
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology: Opposes topic 10
NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale) Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget: Favors topic 11
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students: Favors topic 11
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset: Favors topic 11
YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates: Favors topic 11
YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction: Favors topic 11
NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale) Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days: Strongly Favors topic 12
Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families: Favors topic 12
Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic: Strongly Favors topic 12
Illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses puts them at risk: Opposes topic 12
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants: Opposes topic 12
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders: Opposes topic 12
Anti-immigrant bill would have criminalized Jesus Christ: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration: Favors topic 12
Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill covering child resident aliens under Medicaid: Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens: Favors topic 12
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities": Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on establishing a Guest Worker program: Favors topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program: Neutral topic 12
NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on comprehensive immigration reform: Strongly Favors topic 12
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale) Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale) US support & no-fly zone, but UN troops on ground in Darfur: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Support UN reform because US benefits: Opposes topic 14
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N.: Opposes topic 14
Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel: Favors topic 14
Engage in world affairs, including human rights: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills: Opposes topic 14
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it: Favors topic 14
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US: Favors topic 14
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror: Opposes topic 14
YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods: Strongly Opposes topic 14
NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale) There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale) Voter suppression revives old demons of discrimination: Favors topic 16
Stand for public financing and getting money out of politics: Strongly Favors topic 16
Presidents should reveal donations to their foundations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists: Strongly Favors topic 16
Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines: Favors topic 16
Called for ban on all soft money in 2000 campaign: Favors topic 16
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting: Favors topic 16
YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations: Favors topic 16
YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads: Favors topic 16
NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity: Opposes topic 16
NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress: Strongly Favors topic 16
Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale) Smartest strategic choice is peace: Favors topic 17
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese: Favors topic 17
Foreign aid spending is only 1%; lead by remaining engaged: Strongly Favors topic 17
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have: Favors topic 17
Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq: Favors topic 17
Deauthorize Iraq war, and don’t grant new war authority: Strongly Favors topic 17
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately: Strongly Favors topic 17
Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office: Strongly Favors topic 17
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not: Favors topic 17
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence: Favors topic 17
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq: Strongly Favors topic 17
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran: Favors topic 17
YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007: Strongly Opposes topic 17
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008: Strongly Favors topic 17
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale) $100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation: Strongly Favors topic 18
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us: Strongly Favors topic 18
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA: Favors topic 18
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health: Favors topic 18
Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit: Strongly Favors topic 18
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases: Favors topic 18
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy: Strongly Favors topic 18
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances: Strongly Favors topic 18
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence: Favors topic 18
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness: Favors topic 18
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025: Strongly Favors topic 18
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards: Strongly Favors topic 18
Gas tax holiday for the summer: Opposes topic 18
NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill: Favors topic 18
YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Favors topic 18
YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Favors topic 18
YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Favors topic 18
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale) Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use: Opposes topic 19
Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts: Strongly Opposes topic 19
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine: Opposes topic 19
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use: Favors topic 19
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale) Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates: Favors topic 20
Want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s: Favors topic 20
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks: Strongly Favors topic 20
Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages: Strongly Favors topic 20
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005: Strongly Favors topic 20
End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good: Favors topic 20
Social issues matter; wrong time for tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 20
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium: Strongly Favors topic 20
America can afford to raise the minimum wage: Strongly Favors topic 20
Just Say No to GOP tax plan: Strongly Favors topic 20
YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million: Strongly Favors topic 20


You are cherry picking again....I see ^^^ the big picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:06 PM

51. Well said! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:52 AM

4. I support all those things.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:04 AM

10. Can you say the "far left" supports those things

 

when they can't or won't do what needs to be done to get them? When they actively oppose what needs to be done to get them?

The more-liberal-than-thou shit gets really old - especially when what they do allows Republicans to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:55 AM

14. And yet the West Coast elected Democrats while reforming drug laws, expanding rights and

 

addressing environmental and educational issues. The most liberal States provided the only Democratic regions in the last election.
My liberal Democratic State elected 4 Democratic House members, a Senator and Governor....legalized marijuana for recreational use, added an Equal Rights Amendment to our State Constitution....so when you say 'what liberals do is allow Republicans to be elected' that is not only hugely inaccurate, it is nasty, dismissive bullshit aimed at millions Democratic voters in my own and other Democratic States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 11:24 AM

17. Please note the difference between those who only *claim* to be liberals, & those who actually are.

 

The myopathy that promotes people who claim the mantle of "liberal" & claim to want liberal policies to be enacted into law but the refuse to support the Democrats who can do such things is precisely the reason who find ourselves in the position we're in.

When people say "I can't vote for Hillary. She's just another RW terrorist!", and then turn around & advocate for Elizabeth Warren, who has repeatedly said she's not running, who has a more conservative voting record than Hillary, who has openly advocated for Hillary's nomination, and who just this week accepted a job in the Senate leadership to help with that - those people prove that they are "liberals" - who are perfectly happy to cry about the state of politics in this country but will do nothing about it, thereby helping Republicans gain power - and not liberals (like both Hillary & Warren) who will work night and day to repair the damage caused by Republicans and those "liberals".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:09 PM

30. The "far left"

recognizes neo-liberals passively, and sometimes actively, oppose what needs to be done to get them; that's why we actively oppose neo-liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:36 PM

31. The problem is you're falsely conflating the nearly mythical "neo-liberal" with political realists.

 

The simple fact is the political realists on DU are more likely to be actual liberals than the phoney "far left" who are advocating purges, litmus tests, totalitarian political correctness, and third parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:46 PM

32. No, I'm not.

It's to the advantage of those promoting neo-liberal agendas to portray neo-liberals as "mythical." They are no more mythical than neo-conservatives.

And calling the left "phonies" is a failed attack.

The problem within the party IS neo-liberalism.

The simple fact is that too many voters aren't happy with the performance of the Democratic Party. Political realists would acknowledge that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:27 PM

34. And it's to the advantage of Republicans to sap support from Democrats. Which is what you're doing.

 

Tell me, who's attacking the Democrats on DU? Who's claiming Obama is to the right of Nixon? Who's calling for purges & litmus tests? Who's calling for a mass exodus from the Democrats if a good liberal Democrat like Hillary is nominated (thus ensuring a GOP victory)?

The phoney "far-left".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:43 PM

37. No I'm not.

I'm doing absolutely nothing to sap support from Democrats. I'm simply advocating supporting better Democrats.

All the bogus spin in the world won't change that. And Hillary is a good neo-liberal, which is quite a bit different than a good social liberal.

Who IS calling for a mass exodus? I haven't seen ANYONE calling for that, so your question is either a stereotypical example of hyperbole, or an outright falsehood. I have, of course, seen a number of people who say they won't be voting for her in the GE if she's nominated. That's not anyone calling for a mass exodus. It's a number of individuals considering their options. Still...anyone who is truly concerned about a "mass exodus" might want to ensure that a candidate that can inspire and energize those masses is nominated.

That seems like the logical solution to those who genuinely give a shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:11 PM

39. Better for who? They're not better candidates if they lose, are they?

 

There are RW dupes who post anti-Democrat, third party screeds on DU every day. Your myopathy doesn't make them go away.

And tell me again: WHO'S calling for purges & litmus tests? Hmmm...?

And finally, to continue to smear a good LIBERAL Democrat like Hillary - again - only helps Republicans. There is absolutely you can support the lie that she's not a liberal - especially on social issues. She's certainly more liberal than the phoney "far-left"'s current favorite Elizabeth Warren. And Warren herself knows this, as well as the fact that Clinton has a better chance at winning - which is why Warren supports her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:59 PM

45. They aren't better candidates if

they win an election and lose on the issues, either.

Winning involves issues, not just elections. Electing a neo-liberal Democrat is not a "win" in my book.

There may be RW "dupes" on DU; it's not myopathy to deny them my time or attention. That just feeds them. In my experience, feeding the pest encourages it to stick around. Frankly, I find those supporting HRC to be dupes of the neo-liberal wing of the party. I'll bear that in mind as I ponder going any further with THIS conversation.

I haven't told you even once that anyone is calling for purges or litmus tests. That's your claim, not mine.

Calling HRC a neo-liberal isn't a smear; it's the simple truth. And "good" is subjective. A good neo-liberal is a bad Democrat, from my perspective.

I can absolutely support her neo-liberal connections. She's the stereotypical DLCer...you know: they expanded neo-liberal position in the Democratic Party, then gave way to various other-named but same-agenda branches. I can do that AND express myself coherently.

The "New Democrat Coalition" is one such branch; under the leadership of the "New Democrat" chair of the DNC, DWS, the Democrats just lost the Senate.

Warren? It's true that she's got a lot of populist support, including some from the "far-left." She certainly doesn't have a blanket endorsement, and she's not running, anyway, which makes your point moot.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:16 PM

46. Right. You're one who thinks a Republican President is better than a Hillary President.

 

What a crock of shit! Attitudes like that are what lost Congress to the GOP, I hope you're proud of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 10:17 AM

47. False. Again.

Is this your usual method of discussion? Telling the other person what she thinks? That's a weak form of argument, to say the least, and it doesn't say much about your thinking skills, communication skills, or character.

I AM proud of the fact that I have some principles, to be sure, and don't hide behind standardized assumptions and worn out propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:02 PM

50. Donald Sagretti would be proud of you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:10 PM

52. I don't know who Donald Sagretti is,

but I don't strive for anyone's approval but my own, and pride has nothing to do with it.

I like to call it integrity.

Don't tell me. If I were interested, I could find out easily on my own.

Meanwhile, I hope that's your last, futile attempt to...whatever it is you're trying to do. If not, get used to failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:08 AM

11. Deliberately conflating

Issues with methods in order to divide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 11:04 AM

16. In what way? I see no methods mentioned in the OP.

 

I'm sure you have plenty of points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:00 PM

38. People disagree over how to obtain the goals

But accuse those they disagree with on method with not supporting the goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:19 AM

12. You know, I've waited for someone to ask this question

I'm only on my first bottle of Mountain Dew this cold Saturday morning so have some patience.

Speaking in terms of policy, I'm in your camp. If I could wave a magic wand and make all liberal policies the law of the land, I'd do that. Even if there are some I was on the fence on, I'd probably take the whole package instead of picking and choosing ala carte. If We suddenly found ourselves with a very liberal president and Congress - then I'd advocate screwing the GOP and ramming all the legislation through.

But none of that is likely to happen. In fact, the chances are slim. Very slim (I'd say the magic wand part is impossible.)

So where does that leave people like me? Supporting pragmatic Democrats who compromise for what we can get - which is incremental change, and fighting back against "progressive" authoritarianism. The 'all or nothing' mentality that comes out of the left is much more harmful than it is good. The tone of the 'far left,' with your "uber wealthy corporate megalomaniac overlord" revolutionary rhetoric is cartoonish. You call people 'elite' but it is you who sound elite talking like that.

Finally, the spinning of history by many on the left rivals that of the silliest shit Sarah Palin has ever said. Even recent history, verified in still available news sources, is spun and denied to fit the 'far left' world view.

Some on DU like to make fun of the old canard 'the perfect is the enemy of the good.' But it is absolutely true when applied here. Your resistance to getting organized and raising money to run effective campaigns is legendary. And your excuses when you lose (often having to do with the previously mentioned "uber wealthy corporate megalomaniac overlord" have become a staple in your playbook.

This is why I use the term 'progressive' in quotes as a noun to describe you. I'm progressive (adjective) but NOT a 'progressive' (noun) and why would I want to be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 11:00 AM

15. And thus you shit upon the Democratic segments that have given the Party all the recent victory

 

and progress that has been made. LGBT people resist being organized and raising money? Hilarious, you should all be taking notes and implementing our methods to your own agendas.
The 'moderates' and 'centrists' were on the side opposing equality for years 'be realistic. Only Civil Unions will be possible and that only after many years. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good' they'd say 'you should be happy with second rate status and glad to be denied your Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Stop the poutrage, you just want a fabulous pink pony. Be Pragmatic, give up on your own rights for the sake of our agenda!!!!!!!!!'
Those of us who had to fight for basic rights have seen the Center stark naked and they look much like their Republican counterparts in that state of revelation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 11:35 AM

19. How so?

Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I know plenty of LGBT people who are one issue advocates. They shop at Wal Mart. They enjoy tax breaks. I know even MORE African Americans like that. But there's always some 'more progressive than thou' type telling them they're doing it wrong.

Political pragmatists knew that, until very recently, gay marriage was a losing issue. The 2004 presidential election was lost, in part, because republicans put anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballots in some states and baited people to show up at the polls. Who won that skirmish? It certainly wasn't the ones demanding all or nothing. Calling for civil unions is a middle ground the polling had strongly suggested was much more palatable to the electorate at that time and, frankly, that would have been better than nothing.

Likewise with healthcare. The votes for single payer aren't there. Never have been. The votes for the ACA were only barely there yet is is far better than what was there before - at least to the millions who are now insured and weren't before.

You can hope and wish all you want but people who share our believes across the board aren't in power. And we can point to polls showing how Americans are progressive on issues until the cows come home but if they don't vote that way, it doesn't mean shit.

So go ahead with your fist pumping and ranting and 'all or nothing' shtick. It will get you what it has always gotten you. Jack shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:12 PM

23. + 100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:18 PM

41. Yes and it's bull they are being "shit on"

they are seeing it that way via their impossible standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:45 PM

27. I truly resent the divide that has formed.

Look, I'm from Arkansas. I'm in a hunting state. I don't support many of the restrictions on firearms that many "far-left" liberals do, because I know too many "guns" voters who would otherwise vote Democratic if they felt their Constitutional rights weren't being stripped away.

Some "far-left" people suggest that my old Kimber 9mm, which I kept for home defense until I sold it to my sister when I became suicidal, was "overpowered" because it had an 8-bullet magazine. Ridiculous, IMHO. Yet I'll talk to the "guns" voters about how I feel I should have been required to get my sister to pass a background check when I sold it to her -- "I knew she would pass, it would only be like $15 bucks and 15 minutes at the local pawn shop" -- they mostly agree with me, though some want a family exemption but agree that gun shows should require a background check. When I then say it's a gun owner's responsibility to keep their guns away from criminals, along with children and the clueless, they see my point. (I quoted the 3 Cs that gun-owners are taught.)

Yet if you argue with those same voters and fail to speak their language, even for the same policies, they reject them immediately, feeling it's an encroachment on the 2nd Amendment.

I dislike the "DINO" criticisms of Southern Democrats. Don't you realize that even if they argue for moderation because the people who voted for them may not be as liberal as New Yorkers or Washingtonians, they still vote with the party when things come to a final vote? And now we've lost two Democratic senators from my state in the last four years. Two votes that could have gone to overturning a filibuster on something really important. One was primaried (Blanche Lincoln) using out-of-state funds that should have been used to keep Democrats in office, which were instead used to tar and feather an incumbent Democrat.

I dislike people who suggest that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was thoroughly evil. For it's time, it was the right bill. The repeal of DADT, and allowing open service, would never have happened if we couldn't have argued that gays were serving for years before in the closet and not raping other people in the bathroom. DOMA made some people feel safe that same-sex marriage wouldn't necessarily come to their states -- I'm glad the laws are now changing, thanks to progress in other states. Arkansas saw its first same-sex marriages, something that never would have happened if it hadn't become a state-by-state issue. Yet if we'd started in Arkansas, it would have failed miserably.

I'm grateful for the groundbreaking work done in other, more liberal states. Because once people saw that gay marriage isn't going to lead to babies being sacrificed to Satan or destroy traditional marriages that people have, they haven't challenged it as much as they would have if it'd started in their states. Same with pot legalization. People are seeing that it makes a lot of tax money for states.

But to say it's marijuana legalization for the whole country or I'll just stay at home, or gay marriage for the whole country or I'll vote Green Party, or single-payer or I'll not support the ACA at all, is divisive and stymies national and federal progress.

That's what I have a problem with. Realize each region differs in what they'll accept. Start with incremental change, and change can actually happen. If we give in and let the Republicans take over instead of standing together, moderate Democrat and "far-left" Democrat together, they will work to ruin the progress made in individual states and progress made on the national level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 11:29 AM

18. Well in your rush to sound like a condescending jerk you missed the point

These aren't far left ideas. These are main stream democratic ideals. Who's saying all or nothing? Where did I mention "uber wealthy corporate megalomaniac overlord"? People like fair labor standards and the war on drugs has been a disaster. The environment is the single most important issue facing the world and we are 60 years late to the party. We can't afford to make incremental change on that issue anymore. I'm not proposing socialism or an end to the WTO. I don't think heroin should be sold in 7-11's. Your attempt to categorize me as some far left ideologue is unwarranted and childish.

The point of the OP is not that we should be nominating our version of the Tea Party. Our so called far left is the Democratic base. Our politicians are too busy chasing the other sides to notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:07 PM

21. I didn't miss the point in your intentionally clueless OP

You just weren't expecting the reply.

And really, what's to discuss? It's the same divide that has always separated the left from the 'far left.' You'll continue blaming other people and we'll continues negotiating to get what we can get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:05 PM

29. Banning all firearms or limiting magazines to 7 is pretty "far-left".

If Democrats mellowed out even a touch about guns, it would make a difference in Southern states and get more Democratic votes. Many here are disappointed by the Republicans, but vote for them because they perceive Democrats as coming to take their guns away. Even 10-round limitations eliminate several popular handguns that have double-stack magazines and are easier to handle because of that design.

But even the "gun nuts" I argue with agree that fully automatic weapons, especially belt-fed instead of magazines, should not be sold to the public. Trying to come down on modern hunting rifles is just not the way to go, as many of them that were called "assault weapons" are only called that because of modifications that can be used to hunt game. Talk reasonable restrictions, like youths not being allowed to have access to them, or charging the gun owner if their child uses their gun in a shooting, and many will agree that is the way to go. We nee to get the private-party exemption fixed for background checks, and make all guns have to go through proper channels to get transferred. Even hardened gun nuts agree with me there when I quote gun training experts who say that guns must be kept away from "criminals, children, and the clueless", that such restrictions are reasonable.

"Single payer or nothing" is also a "far-left" POV. We should be trying to get progress made to make the ACA work better, like expanding Marketplace coverage and subsidies to families who are being charged more than 9% of their family income for family coverage, rather than saying "Well, the ACA is toast so let's say single-payer or fuck this shit!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:15 PM

40. I don't disagree with you on either point

I'm a gun owning north easy country liberal. I'm not anti gun and like you I do support sensible gun control. I also am fine with the incremental change that is the ACA. I think the problem with it is too much capitalism but I know that it is a reasonable first step. But the environment? That's not a far left issue. Neither is wealth inequality. Changing drug policy is also an issue that is getting wide support in all demographics. These are all things that are Liberal ideas. Yet people who believe in them get criticized as being the democratic equivalent of the tea party. We are constantly being told to shut up and let the adults in the room make the decisions. Yet liberals have always been the ones pushing for meaningful change. We are right again and again, but we keep getting ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 11:40 AM

20. You're missing the point...

Political "realism" isn't an expression of what we can support; it's an expression of what we can achieve. I think most Democrats would support single-payer health care, but it a political system where the Republicans control a half or more of the Congress, it's not going to happen. So we're faced with two choices: 1) campaign solely for single-payer, lose and get nothing or 2) campaign for ACA, win, advance the ball and work for incremental improvements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:10 PM

22. But everyone doesn't get their patch on the quilt immediately that way.

So some would rather walk away with zero gain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #22)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:20 PM

42. It is tough to understand it

Or to believe it is sincere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 02:59 PM

24. They support not voting if their candidate isn't perfect

That's not a progressive ideal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 02:59 PM

25. "realist" is like "Biblical literalist": they lose elections way more than progs, even in Arkansas

but they simply assert their way out of it by saying "these are things we need to do to win": they of course are the ones with the corporate money, so they sometimes win elections--and always win within the party, controlling the nominations

when the fundies say they're literalist that means they don't have to be bothered with *reading* what they're claiming as Biblical foundations (let alone contextual analysis within the text or consideration of the text's role and purpose); the Baptists even had a leadership coup (at the same time as the neocons popped up and there were similar takeovers in the NRA, many science circles, even Jimmy Carter's last years)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:09 PM

26. uh nope

 

You are still missing the point. Realists understand what is possible to attain and what is not. Realists consider the constraints in play. Realists do not make the perect the enemy of the good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:52 PM

28. Let's do a head count.

Provide me a list of 'far left' candidates who've won statewide and federal offices and I'll provide the same for centrist/moderates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:43 PM

36. +1

The framing of this thread is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:23 PM

43. Exactly. Pick a deep red district where

The democrat can't win. Run a real progressive. They ought to win if the Big Theory is true.

It is dumb when republicans say it too. Mittens lost because he wasn't conservative enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:01 PM

33. Mingling with irrational realists

 

Chaotic beauty rarely springs from linear thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:39 PM

44. That I support, or that I think the Democrats should run on?

The two are completely different because, seemingly unlike most people (which baffles me - it's really not a hard distinction to make), I am capable of recognising that not everyone has the same opinions I do, and that some good policies will be vote-losers.

There are a number of things that I think would be very good for America - government-run health care, strong gun control, sanctions on Israel, large tax rises on the rich, large cuts in defence spending, rewriting the US constitution from the ground up, etc - that I think the Democrats should not make part of their party platform, because they would result in them losing.

I also think that there are some seats where the best thing for the Democrats to do is to run candidates with some views that I think are highly unethical - opposition to or at least equivocation on gay marriage, for example - but who will do less harm than a Republican victory there would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:25 AM

48. I support all of them. But I don't blame a candidate for not getting them passed

We're still a democracy with majority rule, and you have to be able to pass legislation to implement policies. Compromise between groups with different perspectives is the basis of democratic government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:17 PM

54. The people who did not vote this year

 

didn't vote because they couldn't find a candidate that was Conservative enough

they didn't vote because there was no one who was PROGRESSIVE enough

People would rather stay home than vote for the lesser of two evils.

The REALISTS don't get that, and neither do the Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Original post)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:24 PM

55. 3 iAddie's

that is what most people run on. If you start with positions on 20 issues voters stop listening. It doesn't mean you don't have a position just that it's too easy to divert a campaign completely off message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gwheezie (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 03:25 PM

56. 3 issues

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread