Do you want progress, or do you want disruption?

[KMOD]

We are about to nominate an exceptional candidate who will continue progressive values.

And yet, some of you seem to be dismissing this, and in doing so are helping Trump.

What gives?

[FreakinDJ]

1. Common sense vs: excitement

you might have to settle for common sense

[KMOD]

6. Do you find Trump, exciting?

[elleng]

2. REAL progress.

[KMOD]

4. Who is going to give you REAL progress?

Trump? or Hillary Clinton?

[scscholar]

8. At least Hillary won't regress!

Supporting Sanders' ego will elect tRump.

[bhikkhu]

12. We have given us real progress

in many areas that I didn't think possible during the bush years. Real progress in areas where our president didn't so much lead, as allowed it to happen and evolved to accept. That's fine with me.

[KG]

3. I lulz'd

[KMOD]

5. Ahhh, but why?

[Rex]

7. YEP.

[demmiblue]

25. So did I.

1 a.m. postings are always fun!

[YOHABLO]

10. I'm in for Hillary. But we have a Congress you know. That's where the problem is.

[Ned Flanders]

11. Is there some reason you think we can speak freely? n/t

[MFM008]

15. you can speak freely about anything

Just don't rank on our nominee.
You can compliment Sanders, or any other democrat
If not try Freeperville....They are having a sad and may need cheering up.

[Gene Debs]

14. There really needs to be a variation on Godwin's Law for this election season. For those unfamiliar,

Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

"Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that 'As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler approaches—​​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism....there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law."

As far as I'm concerned, from now on, whenever anyone accuses another person who's not enthusiastic about Clinton of wanting to help Trump, they lose the argument. I think I'll perhaps immodestly refer to it as Gene Debs' Law.

[Squinch]

17. Ironic. You actually invoked Godwin's law without realizing it. And thereby lost the argument

by the rules of Godwin's law.

You are comparing two things. On the one hand are people on a Democratic message board requiring support for the Democratic candidate. On the other are people who compare things to Hitler or Nazism. And you are saying they are similar.

Thanks for playing!

[Bluenorthwest]

24. I say 'Godwin's law' is an internet construct created to assist fascist thought by freeing it from

comparisons to historical examples of such ideologies. The so called 'law' is starkly opposite of the urgent call of those who survived the Nazis, who say 'Never forget' while Godwin says 'never even mention it or you lose'.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. I want to spend all my time on DU talking about what other people on DU are talking about!

The magnificence of the collective navel must be gazed upon in all its glory!

[pampango]

18. Is 'progress' the dreaded 'incrementalism? While 'disruption' is the much-admired 'revolution'?

I think incremental change in the right direction (the more the better) is a positive change. Revolution is harder to bring, often causes much pain (sometimes for other people not the revolutionaries) in the short run, and sometimes back-fires in the long run.

[bemildred]

19. It is (almost) always better to build on what you have.

The impulse to start over comes from the mis-perception that the problem is simple. But that doesn't mean you never need to make big changes.

[Chan790]

20. Real improvement requires change...

and change is a disruptive process. Those who value non-disruption (such as incrementalists) are the enemies of progress.

[bemildred]

22. Well the thing is the changes you need don't get smaller while you are stalling them off.

If you really want beneficial gradual change, you need leaders with a long-range and very unsentimental view of the situation you are in now and where you "need" to go, and that is almost never the case, they are all very sentimental about their own interests. And that is the advantage of democracy, the people too vote for their own interests, but "they" is us in that case, or as close as you can get to "us".

One of the things I have liked best about President Obama is that he at least attempts to see things in that dispassionate and long-range way, and to talk about it that way, a good example in an otherwise debased political environment.

[Tanuki]

29. That's what Nader voters claimed when they opposed Gore.

We got "change" when they helped enable Bush the Lesser's selection, but for my money they were the ones who turned out to be the enemies of progress.

[bemildred]

32. And it is soooo convenient to blame it on Nader, isn't it?

So much better than considering the effect of a warmongering asshole like LIeberman as VP and Gore's decision to distance himself from a popular sitting President running on an (at the time) great economic record, and of course the Scalia-led USSC intervention. No, let's blame in on the irrelevant nobody Nader. How convenient.

[hobbit709]

21. real progress always disrupts the established setup.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Why do you think those are the choices, binary and tightly constructed as they are?

Is this how you see the world? Does that serve you well?

[Tal Vez]

27. I think that most people who want victory will choose progress over disruption.

People believe that progress is more likely to lead to a Democratic victory in November than disruption. People believe that unity is preferable to disunity if the goal is victory in November. That does not seem to me to be very controversial.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. And yet you failed to address the question I actually presented, also you are not the OP and I

asked those questions of the OP. If you are going to do tag team, you need to at least directly address what has been asked. Good lord.

Thought experiment: Creating marriage equality was progress but many conservatives in both Parties saw it as disruption of sacred things. Were those who shouted 'disruption' correct? Were the choices really 'progress or disruption'? I think the choices were 'Justice or continued injustice'.

Another: Democrats in the House recently staged a sit in to push for progress on gun control. Republicans said they were being very disruptive. And they did in fact not follow protocol and they did upturn decorum, they did disrupt the day. I say they did that to make progress. Republicans say they were just being disruptive to get attention, throwing a tantrum. With your lexicon the choices are 'disruption or progress' but in the real world disruption often leads to progress.

[Android3.14]

26. Another of those, "if you don't shit your pants in excitement...

"...then you can't sit at our stinking lunch table."

[Duckhunter935]

28. I am glad to work on Congress

Nothing can change without them changing

[JustAnotherGen]

30. I want to hold the line

IF Congress looks in January 2017 as it does today - I need someone in the WH who is tough enough to hold the line and veto their regressive bullshit. That's Clinton.