So, a guy who knows I lean on the progressive side, walks up to me
and starts spewing that Nader, backed by progressives, lost the 2000 election for the Democrats, that progressives have never done anything to advance the cause of Democrats, that they're always whining and wanting ponies and stuff and ended with asking me if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, would I vote for her.
At first I was a little taken aback and, being the reactionary that I have a tendency to be, ALMOST started to fire back and correct his misinformation but then I stopped. Why was this gentleman being so in-your-face aggressive? Can't he make his point without the aggression? And then, let's say, he calls a group of people over, many of whom he knows, informs them of how disloyal I am to The Party and the group then begins to cajole me and needle me and try to get me to react. Maybe to even run me off for good. And then it came to me. He's TRYING to get me to over-react. He's trying to get me to say something in the heat of the moment that can then be selectively and adequately spinned to make it sound like I'm the aggressor. So, I chose not to play his game and, instead, commented on what a lovely day it was and I hope we see rain soon.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Excellent...summation. So glad you're back! 
Your thread winning comment made me actually L-O-L!!!
And I don't do that easily!!!
As well as in response to all the "When Bernie loses the nomination, will you vote for Hillary" posts and all the other flamebait threads that the desperate have been putting up the last few days. It was supposed to be satire but I think I need to hone my satire skills a little better before trying the next one. And I will. 
started about 45 seconds after the Administrators put this site up.
and strangely familiar.
We'll all be better off when we figure out how not to play that kind of game. 
I've only encountered it here and refused to answer every time, much as decent people did during the McCarthy hearing (though not Reagan or his boss, Jack Warner, who took it on themselves to aid and abet that creepy RW fucker).
Coming from a Democrat IRL, it would be even creepier than it is at DU.
?w=1000
and then someone complained about me complaining .It was all so agressively passive or passively agressive.
I hear you ,we once had Bush to comisserate about then we fought about the 2004 primaries ,2008 ,2012 .We argued about arguing about progressives verses liberals verses reacionaries and what the word luberty means.Thru it all I love this place although I still hate Led Zeppelin .
Yeah, I know, cheap shot.
And a pox on your household for blaspheming Led Zeppelin.
...and I feel entitled to it!
I love this thread
Go Bernie and your liberal, fringe, left - leaning agenda!
because McGovern was too liberal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825
Carter lost to Reagan only because Carter was too liberal, er, I mean, never mind about that election behind the curtain.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1277&thread=8873
Mondale lost to incumbent President Reagan only because Mondale was too centrist liberal.
Policies
Mondale worked hard to build up the center of the party on economic and social issues. Unlike his own father, a fervent liberal, he was not a crusader for the New Deal. Instead he realized the Democratic base (especially ethnic blue collar workers) was gradually moving to the right and he worked to keep their support.[13] Mondale showed little or no interest in foreign policy until about 1974, when he realized that some knowledge was necessary if he had loftier aspirations than the Senate. He developed a centrist position, avoiding alignment with either the party's hawks (such as Henry M. Jackson) or its doves (such as George McGovern).[14] He took a liberal position on civil rights issues, which proved acceptable in Minnesota, a state with "a minuscule black population".[15] Mondale was a chief sponsor of the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing and created HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity as the primary enforcer of the law.[16]
During the Johnson presidency Mondale supported the Vietnam War, but after Richard Nixon became President in 1969, he began to oppose it and participated in legislation aimed at restricting Nixon's ability to prolong the war. Mondale is pro-choice on the issue of abortion. [3][17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale
And centrist Gore lost to Bush only because Nader ran. Nothing more complicated than that.
Always, always, always, it's the left that is responsible for all bad things in this country. It was true in the 1930s, the 1950s, 1970s and the 1990s and it's truer now than ever before. And, in 2020, it will be even truer of that Presidential election.
Gawd. How many times do you liberals have to have these things repeated to you?
Thank you, thank you.
I've had people that I've known for years now tell me Free Trade is a wonderful invention that will save the planet. Amazing how they agree with libertarians and Reaganites...I could have sworn they were more progressive then that.
However their lack of replies to said questions about why they support neoliberalism were met with complete silence. So I took that to mean that I was correct in that they knew the difference between regulated and unregulated caplitalism and desire the second one.
Just a small group of people, the rest are much easier to talk to since they want to discuss issues and ideas.
Libertarians counteract their feelings of powerlessness by believing they are entitled to do anything they please because they are so fucking smart and Luberty is a town in Texas isn't it ?
didn't get enough signatures to get it on the ballot. Maybe next time?
Well then. I thought so.
I understood it as such. (I said metaphor, but yes, I got it). I thought that you stated it well.
Hahaha, yeah, because Progressives don't care about winning, and weren't passionately engaged in stopping Bush. That was their problem, the Progressives didn't care enough about winning.
P.S. Nader got a lot of votes from people who would never vote for Gore.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
Arguably, he nearly cost Bush the election.
Bazinga!! 
Take for instance a message board, people do that on those too. Friends like that are toxic and your lovely day comment is just the perfect response. There is never a reason to go on with conversations like that. It just feeds their ego.
