Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Apparently Progressive now means (Original Post) BainsBane May 2017 OP
Reminds me how some joining the pileon claimed they were just worried about the optics. kcr May 2017 #1
It really is something BainsBane May 2017 #3
Great point, kcr.. thank you! Cha May 2017 #49
Exactly Zoonart May 2017 #2
Do you remember what the right wing did to Christianity? SecularMotion May 2017 #4
The word became distasteful to me over a year ago BainsBane May 2017 #27
I know.. "progressive"regressive imv Cha May 2017 #50
I wonder why no one has said anything about fun n serious May 2017 #5
Or paying cash for a third home BainsBane May 2017 #6
Is that a thing now? We're mad at politicians for buying something with their own money? nt Kirkwood May 2017 #11
"Their own money" BainsBane May 2017 #12
Uh, the "elected official's" wife sold a home that was in her family since the 1900's. Kirkwood May 2017 #14
The, as you put it, "elected official's" wife's share of that sale was about $150K George II May 2017 #19
Please help. Which part am I supposed to be against? Kirkwood May 2017 #23
Third home BainsBane May 2017 #31
I don't care how many homes. Are we against any American for buying whatever they want? Kirkwood May 2017 #35
Thanks for clarifying that BainsBane May 2017 #28
Yes....see below. She actually sold her share a year before buying the Lake Champlain house: George II May 2017 #32
Excellent BainsBane May 2017 #34
Thank you George. lunamagica May 2017 #51
Post removed Post removed May 2017 #25
See also post #32 above. George II May 2017 #33
Thanks. Kirkwood May 2017 #38
Close, but not quite... lapucelle May 2017 #36
And one who reported net worth in the range of about $350-700K George II May 2017 #53
+1 uponit7771 May 2017 #7
Apparently Progressives aren't allowed to care about two things at the same time in varying degrees. Nanjeanne May 2017 #8
Post removed Post removed May 2017 #10
You're right. Better to keep losing to the GOP. Kirkwood May 2017 #13
What makes you think BainsBane May 2017 #15
So, the progressives have changed their list of priorities so that they no longer support women. Kirkwood May 2017 #17
We've seen endorsements of three anti-choice candidates BainsBane May 2017 #26
Where did I say that you shouldn't worry about equal rights? Kirkwood May 2017 #30
Priorities imply order and rank lapucelle May 2017 #69
But, who's doing that? Kirkwood May 2017 #72
Endorsement of three anti-choice candidates is an explicit and obvious example LanternWaste May 2017 #77
So, no example of "prioritizing women's rights as secondary". Kirkwood May 2017 #80
See #79 lapucelle May 2017 #82
Of course I can. lapucelle May 2017 #79
It depends on the district and the race, and the election. moriah May 2017 #45
Poutage? Is that French? Nanjeanne May 2017 #20
"Poutrage" is a portmanteau neologism lapucelle May 2017 #40
It was a joke. Probably not a very good one. But a joke nonetheless. Nanjeanne May 2017 #41
:) BainsBane May 2017 #42
No doubt, you'll maintain a fictional pretense of relevance between the two LanternWaste May 2017 #78
Well, the OP has established the rule. Orsino May 2017 #81
It's kind of like this classic Python clip nycbos May 2017 #9
To the so-called "Progressives" NastyRiffraff May 2017 #16
+1 padah513 May 2017 #21
The term "progressive" has a history that some of us identify strongly with MountCleaners May 2017 #37
It wasn't about big money but corruption BainsBane May 2017 #43
That's not true MountCleaners May 2017 #47
Your conflate past and present throughout your post BainsBane May 2017 #61
. This. Hekate May 2017 #70
It seems to be called a progressive one must now past a purity test. Vinca May 2017 #18
As long as Progressives are in charge, Dems will never win another election. leftofcool May 2017 #39
Exactly. All of their biased world views are being used against Democrats in R B Garr May 2017 #44
Is passing part of that test refraining from criticizing giving paid speeches to financial firms? David__77 May 2017 #56
people more upset about Obama legally making money than the trash in the white house JI7 May 2017 #22
Nonsense. theaocp May 2017 #58
i could tell by the reaction. just like how the right wing gets more upset at muslim terrorists than JI7 May 2017 #59
Well, you've obviously got this whole thing figured out, so take it easy. n/t theaocp May 2017 #60
I need to contemplate this from my lake house this weekend. nt LexVegas May 2017 #24
I'm happy to contemplate it from my public-housing-eligible position. moriah May 2017 #46
K&R! stonecutter357 May 2017 #29
It's not originating with progressives Warpy May 2017 #48
I don't fall for any of it BainsBane May 2017 #62
K&R! Good job, BB! lunamagica May 2017 #52
sad but true... Blue_Tires May 2017 #54
Who said paid speeches are more troubling than forced ultrasounds? David__77 May 2017 #55
Some find one "distasteful" Kaye_NY May 2017 #57
+1000 sheshe2 May 2017 #65
Who said that forced ultrasounds aren't troubling? David__77 May 2017 #67
K&R nt JTFrog May 2017 #63
I know. It's disappointing. It makes me sad, and angry. NurseJackie May 2017 #64
Sad K&R sheshe2 May 2017 #66
That look on her face says it all, Bains.. Cha May 2017 #68
"Apparently progressive now means Link To Tweet." Shandris May 2017 #71
The idea that Obama is just another "private citizen" is rich. YoungDemCA May 2017 #73
yeah that's what he is .. JHan May 2017 #74
So are you, and so am I. Obviously we both have Obama's level of visibility and influence. YoungDemCA May 2017 #75
Kick! Perfect! Squinch May 2017 #76

kcr

(15,315 posts)
1. Reminds me how some joining the pileon claimed they were just worried about the optics.
Mon May 1, 2017, 09:20 AM
May 2017

Well, there's some optics for them to actually worry about. All the handwringing about how Dems suck because they don't know how to message. But nothing wrong with attacking the first black president who is hugely popular for giving a speech when he's no longer in office. While at the same time dismissing the criticisms of those who think abortion is a top concern as divisive. That will really get everyone unified and behind the cause to get money out of politics!

Zoonart

(11,847 posts)
2. Exactly
Mon May 1, 2017, 09:23 AM
May 2017

Young women, prepare. The mothers and grandmothers of the women's reproductive rights movement will be here to hold you up, but you will have to fight.

Roe v Wade IS GOING AWAY.

As soon as this summer, Trump, or Pence or even Ryan will appoint another judge to the SCOTUS and soon thereafter the court will take a case to abolish ROE and IT WILL BE GONE.

When we fought for reproductive rights in the 70sand the 80s, we were counting on the concept of "Settled law" (the SCOTUS rarely overturns decisions that have been on the books for 30 years) to carry the day and protect ROE, but settled law is no longer any protection. The court has become irrevocably politicized and ROE is the carrot that the GOP has long promised to deliver to it's base.

The problem is compounded by recent hints by the Democrats that they will have very little appetite to expend energy to reinstate a women's right to choose as law of the land and would rather pick up those voters that will be newly freed from voting against their best economic interests because they no longer feel bound to the GOP because of abortion.

This is going to be a FIGHT.

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
12. "Their own money"
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:20 AM
May 2017

Apparently "progressives" are mad at Obama making his own money.

How do you suppose an elected official gets $600k in cash?

 

Kirkwood

(58 posts)
14. Uh, the "elected official's" wife sold a home that was in her family since the 1900's.
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:26 AM
May 2017

They used that money to buy a beach house. Are we also against spouses making money? Or, is that wrong too?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house

And, not sure what Obama has to do with any of this.

 

Kirkwood

(58 posts)
23. Please help. Which part am I supposed to be against?
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:44 AM
May 2017

That an elected official shouldn't be allowed to buy a second home when they get to retirement age?

Or, that the elected official's spouse can't contribute their own money to such a purpose?

Which part is supposed to make me angry?

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
31. Third home
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:59 AM
May 2017

The OP is about people getting angry at a black man earning $400K. I made a point about hypocrisy. You insisted that there was no hypocrisy since the Sanders merely sold a home and bought another. Only somehow $150k magically became $600k--hence the third home.

Since you're busy trying to insist that there is nothing wrong with owning three homes or magically materializing $350k in CASH, you have provided evidence for my point. Progressives so upset about Obama justify wealth held by others. So obviously the outrage has absolutely nothing to do with principle, as you have demonstrated so perfectly.

Thanks for your contribution.

 

Kirkwood

(58 posts)
35. I don't care how many homes. Are we against any American for buying whatever they want?
Mon May 1, 2017, 12:08 PM
May 2017

And why does it matter that where they got the money? Do you have any proof that they just didn't save for it?

The post I was responding to was about Bernie buying another home. My comments had NOTHING to do with Obama. But, thanks for trying to deflect.

My comment was to BainsBane, btw. I really wasn't interested in your opinion.

George II

(67,782 posts)
32. Yes....see below. She actually sold her share a year before buying the Lake Champlain house:
Mon May 1, 2017, 12:01 PM
May 2017
https://vtdigger.org/2016/08/18/sanders-lake-home-purchase-leaves-questions-unanswered/

According to town records in Bridgton, Maine, Jane O’Meara Sanders gave up her ownership stake in her family’s summer home in June 2015. Two of her brothers, Francis G. O’Meara and Gerard J. O’Meara, are listed as the current owners. All three had owned the property.

A Maine property transfer tax document obtained by VTDigger on Thursday says Sanders sold her stake in the property for $150,000.

Response to Kirkwood (Reply #14)

lapucelle

(18,240 posts)
36. Close, but not quite...
Mon May 1, 2017, 12:09 PM
May 2017

According to The Burlington Free Press (18 August 2016)

On another financial matter, Jane Sanders said she and her husband paid cash — $575,000 — for the four-bedroom summer house they recently bought in North Hero on the Lake Champlain shore. She said she sold her share of her family’s long-time vacation home in Bridgton, Maine, to her brother for $150,000, added some money from her retirement account and from an advance her husband got on a book he is writing to come up with the money to buy the couple’s third home.


http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/08/18/jane-sanders-defends-non-disclosure-vacation-home/88972168/

Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #8)

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
15. What makes you think
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:27 AM
May 2017

Abandoning a position supported by the overwhelming majority of voters is a winning strategy? That is a transparent and weak excuse, and it shows how desperate those who make it are to engineer the subjegation of a population they feel too weak to compete with.
Frankly, it's pathetic.

 

Kirkwood

(58 posts)
17. So, the progressives have changed their list of priorities so that they no longer support women.
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:29 AM
May 2017

Is that what you're going with, really? That they "abandoned" women's rights because of this one politician?

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
26. We've seen endorsements of three anti-choice candidates
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:52 AM
May 2017

and we've seen people like you insisting worrying about something as trivial as equal rights loses elections, which is obvious bullshit.

 

Kirkwood

(58 posts)
30. Where did I say that you shouldn't worry about equal rights?
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:55 AM
May 2017

I never came close to saying that.

As a matter of fact, I'm the one that is trying to keep Republicans from getting elected. Others, not so much. They are fine with letting it happen.

lapucelle

(18,240 posts)
69. Priorities imply order and rank
Mon May 1, 2017, 10:06 PM
May 2017

concerning the relative importance of an issue. That's certainly not the same as abandoning women's rights.

Prioritizing a woman's human right to bodily autonomy as secondary is what many find troubling.



 

Kirkwood

(58 posts)
72. But, who's doing that?
Tue May 2, 2017, 02:39 PM
May 2017

I don't know of any Progressive that is prioritizing women's rights as secondary.

Can you show me where someone has done that?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
77. Endorsement of three anti-choice candidates is an explicit and obvious example
Tue May 2, 2017, 04:30 PM
May 2017

Can you show me where someone has done that?

Endorsement of three anti-choice candidates is an explicit, accurate and obvious example. Stay on track. fella.

lapucelle

(18,240 posts)
79. Of course I can.
Tue May 2, 2017, 11:26 PM
May 2017

During the campaign when asked about Trump's troubling assertion that women who have abortions should be punished, a leading progressive responded:

"Any stupid, absurd remark made by Donald Trump becomes the story of the week. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to have a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America."

The same leading progressive refused to endorse the Democratic candidate over the Republican in a Georgia special election explaining, "I don't know if he's a progressive."

Yet the same man knew enough about a candidate in the VA gubernatorial primary to endorse him, even though the candidate has a voting history antithetical to pro-choice principles and even though the candidate has refused to take a stance on the issue. We don't know where the candidate stands on abortion issues, yet a leading progressive feels comfortable endorsing him.

A leading progressive asked the DNC chair to add a stop during the Unity Tour so he could make an appearance at a rally for a mayoral candidate with a virulently anti-choice record. The leading progressive (who is very selective about who he endorses) knew enough about this candidate to support him and arrange for an appearance at his side. Either the leading progressive knew about the candidate's anti-choice history, and he didn't care, or he never bothered to check the candidate's stance because it didn't matter.

There is nothing wrong with prioritizing issues; it's the denial that's troubling.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-jabs-sanders-over-trump-abortion-controversy/

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329559-sanders-i-dont-know-if-ossoff-is-progressive

http://www.ontheissues.org/VA/Tom_Perriello.htm

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/bernie-sanders-clarifies-support-jon-ossoff-after-dustup-n749491

moriah

(8,311 posts)
45. It depends on the district and the race, and the election.
Mon May 1, 2017, 01:51 PM
May 2017

But FFS, if a person is going to run as a Democrat but say they want Roe v Wade to be repealed... they aren't likely going to get the female voters needed to win unless they're in a VERY conservative district. Mayors races are about the only thing they should be running for unless they agree that their conscience, and other people's consciences, are each person's own.

I get personal conscience. I doubt that I could have an abortion at this stage in my life. I am not sure when "life" starts, or when a fetus might feel pain.

But I still can't countenance physically enslaving someone against their will to even save another human being's life, for even nine months. I can't countenance exposing women who don't want to bear children to the health risks that accompany pregnancy and childbirth, when an early 1st trimester abortion is safer for the woman.

Nanjeanne

(4,938 posts)
20. Poutage? Is that French?
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:38 AM
May 2017

But merci for sharing your opinion. I had forgotten it from the previous zillion posts.

And your use of a dictionary and thesaurus is astounding, phenomenal, mind-blowing. I rarely post so it's quite amazing and incredible that, according to your wisdom, I have staked out my position so clearly and that I've changed it now to justify something. I didn't know that.

I thought I simply stated one sentence - that I can be outraged at forced ultra sounds and also have concerns about Pres. Obama's speech to a Wall Street firm.

What would I do without you telling me? I'm still unsure - maybe even betwixt and between - and in a quandry - about how I did that. But I'm sure you will probably educate and enlighten and edify me. While it's always such a pleasure to read your astute and mindful posts - truly you don't need to exert yourself!

Mais merci tout de même

lapucelle

(18,240 posts)
40. "Poutrage" is a portmanteau neologism
Mon May 1, 2017, 12:35 PM
May 2017

that first came into use around 2008-2009. It signifies phony outrage.

While "pout" has an uncertain origin, "outrage" came to French from Vulgar Latin during the Roman occupation and made its way to English following the Norman conquest.

You were probably unable to source it due to your typo.



 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
78. No doubt, you'll maintain a fictional pretense of relevance between the two
Tue May 2, 2017, 04:31 PM
May 2017

" that I can be outraged at forced ultra sounds and also have concerns about Pres. Obama's speech to a Wall Street firm..."

No doubt, you'll maintain a fictional pretense of relevance between the two, regardless of your mind blowing around, or what you may or may not do without a post instructing you to.

NastyRiffraff

(12,448 posts)
16. To the so-called "Progressives"
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:29 AM
May 2017

I won't forgive you for trashing the best president in memory because he dared to speak to "Wall Street," two words that bring on a Pavlovian response from all of you. That "Wall Street" firm was Cantor Fitzgerald. This Cantor Fitzgerald: The Amazing And Heartbreaking Story Of The CEO Who Lived And Rebuilt His Firm After 9/11: Howard Lutnick But it's all the same to you, isn't it?

I'm a Liberal myself, and proud of that term. You can have "Progressive." As a woman and a Democrat, I'm done with all of you.

Thanks for this OP, Bains

MountCleaners

(1,148 posts)
37. The term "progressive" has a history that some of us identify strongly with
Mon May 1, 2017, 12:11 PM
May 2017

It doesn't mean we hate "liberals" or are avoiding the term. It is a term that refers to an approach to politics that is more than 100 years old. It was about reform and taming the influence of big money on politics.


https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressive-era.cfm


In other words, they were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change. Social reformers, like Jane Addams, and journalists, like Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbel, were powerful voices for progressivism. They concentrated on exposing the evils of corporate greed, combating fear of immigrants, and urging Americans to think hard about what democracy meant. Other local leaders encouraged Americans to register to vote, fight political corruption, and let the voting public decide how issues should best be addressed (the initiative, the referendum, and the recall).



There is nothing suspect about a 130-year-old political approach. Since the progressive movement has been strongly aligned with labor unions, to attack progressives because you think they are a threat to "liberals" smacks of McCarthyism.

I am not a Sanders supporter, and voted Clinton in the primary.

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
43. It wasn't about big money but corruption
Mon May 1, 2017, 12:46 PM
May 2017

particularly in city machines, like Tammany Hall. Bribes were common, but they were largely relatively small amounts of money rather than a means by which the wealthy and large corporations exerted influence. Historians have suggested that one of the unintended consequences of cleaning up the city machines is that government actually became less responsive to ordinary citizens.

Progressivism was a middle-class reform movement, and women were central to it. I don't believe those who use the term today get their inspiration from the likes of Jane Addams, the prohibitionists, or suffragettes. Their focus is overwhelmingly on what they call the working class, but they really mean the middle- and upper middle class.

The problem is contemporary progressives have used the term as a club. They use it to differentiate and exclude. Since you didn't vote for Sanders, you don't quality to them.

MountCleaners

(1,148 posts)
47. That's not true
Mon May 1, 2017, 02:40 PM
May 2017

Progressives fought industry in the form of stronger regulation. The pro-regulation tendency comes out of the progressive era. It may be true that some who use the term don't know its history, but progressive institutions like the Progressive Caucus (https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=74§iontree=2,74) and magazines like The Progressive (http://progressive.org/) and Mother Jones certainly do.

I've attended meetings of progressive groups, and the people there were very aware of this tradition. For example, I volunteered for Howard Dean, and remember this very clearly:

Back when he was a rising phenomenon in Iowa and New Hampshire, Howard Dean used to revel in reeling off the names of the various politicians to whom journalists had taken to comparing him: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George McGovern, even Barry Goldwater. (I myself, writing in The New York Times Magazine , drew a parallel between Dr. Dean and Jerry Brown.) But as Dr. Dean's once-soaring campaign lost altitude over the dairy farms of Wisconsin during the last month, Dr. Dean took to invoking a more distant historical figure: Robert LaFollette , Wisconsin's iconic early 20th century governor and senator, whose name is synonymous with progressivism.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/politics/the-dean-legacy.html?_r=0

There is a lot more to progressivism than suffrage and Prohibition. I find it ridiculous when you say they don't support the working class when progressives are most noted for their support of unions.

Someone who says I "don't qualify" is an ignorant progressive. Random people on the internet don't constitute the "progressive movement." There is a Progressive Caucus that is mostly Democrats:

https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71

Gee, they say that their goals are:

1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies
» To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all.

» To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.

» To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America’s schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.

» To export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.

» To reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.

» To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.


You're disparaging a well-networked movement that is many decades old by implying that it is for the middle-class. I come from a working-class background. All of my family were steelworkers and we have always admired progressive causes and politics because they speak directly to our experience.

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
61. Your conflate past and present throughout your post
Mon May 1, 2017, 06:44 PM
May 2017

The Progressive Movement was a middle-class reform movement. That is a historical fact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era The labor leaders at the time often were anarcho-syndicalists, not Progressives reformers. Progressive-era presidents used the power of the federal government against unions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

Your citation from the current US House or magazine articles is not evidence for the turn of the 20th century.

As for the contemporary use of the term, you can thank the sanctimonious keyboard warriors for disparaging it. I am simply telling you how I have seen it used for the past couple of years, and it's become increasingly narrow since.

The tweet in the OP reflects the kind of hypocrisy and absurdity many of us have seen espoused under the guise of progressivism. That experience is widespread. It is not in any way meant to disparage the causes and activism that you outline.

Vinca

(50,258 posts)
18. It seems to be called a progressive one must now past a purity test.
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:29 AM
May 2017

Sorry. I'd like us to win an election again. Earn, Obama, earn.

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
44. Exactly. All of their biased world views are being used against Democrats in
Mon May 1, 2017, 12:55 PM
May 2017

mainstream news now. I hear it more and more, Rush Limbaugh, Fox etc. taking what was said by the so-called progressives and using it to associate it with the "failing" Democrat party. I hear those words directly from a certain Senator who claims to speak for Democrats.

David__77

(23,369 posts)
56. Is passing part of that test refraining from criticizing giving paid speeches to financial firms?
Mon May 1, 2017, 05:32 PM
May 2017

Who is imposing purity tests on whom?

JI7

(89,244 posts)
22. people more upset about Obama legally making money than the trash in the white house
Mon May 1, 2017, 11:44 AM
May 2017

Running things as if it's their own business for their own profit.

Read about ivanka promoting their business in philippines just as they invite duterte to the white house and all the questionable fake names in money raised for inauguration.

theaocp

(4,235 posts)
58. Nonsense.
Mon May 1, 2017, 06:27 PM
May 2017

Where in the world would you get the idea that someone criticizing something means they are any more upset about it than another outrage? Utter rot.

JI7

(89,244 posts)
59. i could tell by the reaction. just like how the right wing gets more upset at muslim terrorists than
Mon May 1, 2017, 06:34 PM
May 2017

White mass shooters .

moriah

(8,311 posts)
46. I'm happy to contemplate it from my public-housing-eligible position.
Mon May 1, 2017, 01:57 PM
May 2017

Nope, Obama had an easy ride as President. He must now go to only public access boat launches.

Warpy

(111,237 posts)
48. It's not originating with progressives
Mon May 1, 2017, 03:52 PM
May 2017

There are alt-right assholes and Russian trolls who run fine combs through everything Sanders, Warren, or anyone else who sticks his neck out say and when they find something, like a very mild "distasteful" remark about a high paid speech to a Wall Street company, they trumpet it all over Farcebook and other "social" media.

Then Sanders haters or Warren haters or just plain left haters trumpet it here. "OH MY GOD, S/HE SAID SOMETHING STUPID IN AN UNGUARDED MOMENT! S/HE IS OUR ENEMY! I TOLD YOU SO!"

This is not what progressives or leftists are saying or doing. This is what conservatives are saying and doing.

Stop falling for it. Please.

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
62. I don't fall for any of it
Mon May 1, 2017, 06:48 PM
May 2017

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

But the fact is several of them are on this website. We also see long-term members who persistently defend the comments.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
64. I know. It's disappointing. It makes me sad, and angry.
Mon May 1, 2017, 07:33 PM
May 2017

Our party leadership needs to reflect and make some changes, and adjust some attitudes.

 

Shandris

(3,447 posts)
71. "Apparently progressive now means Link To Tweet."
Mon May 1, 2017, 10:29 PM
May 2017

Well, at least it's a unified, coherent definition I suppose...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Apparently Progressive no...