Radical Left Is A Myth And A Lie. Common Decency/Sense Now Framed Radical.

[TheMastersNemesis]

If you want a decent job or a decent life with clean air, water, health care and some sense of social justice you are framed as radical. If you want whet FDR proposed you are radical. The radical left would be communist. And there is virtually no communist party.

[Chasstev365]

1. When the Democratic party moved to the center in tbe 1990's

they helped fuel this notion.

[whathehell]

76. Agreed..

Judging by some of the posts on this thread, it seems a number of younger DUers know little of how different America was, not only before Clinton, but before Reagan.

[Demsrule86]

2. I disagree...what you describe are Democratic beliefs..radical is the belief

that you need party purity and it is ok to vote for spoiler Greens if you don't get it or sit home ...Greens destroy progressive policy attained since Roosevelt and have especially caused damage to the environment with their spoiler tactics. They should change their name as 'Green' is not appropriate to their actions...I would lump justice ' Democrats' and other such groups in the spoiler category as they primary sitting Democrats instead of going after Republicans.

[KPN]

30. That's not accurate. I disagree based on personal experience here at DU alone.

Many here who voted for Hillary are consistently "excoriated" for simply pointing out what they feel are significant Democratic Party failures and flaws over the past 3 decades, including the 2016 election loss, and proposing a better way. Happens all the time. Maybe you don't do that, but it does happen all the time. It's all a matter of perspective.

[OriginalGeek]

37. Yeah I'm so confused now i Just say fuckit.

I vote straight D. I used to consider myself radical lefty - I don't hate communism, I do hate the death penalty and I'm for most all social programs to help feed, clothe, shelter and heal anyone who needs it. I wish all Dems were further left than they are except maybe the ones that would end up being fascist fringe right if they moved another inch left

But I don't demand it. Maybe I should. I still vote D every time except for once when it didn't matter in a local sheriff race when the Dem didn't support medical cannabis. He won by a huge margin anyway as expected.

I guess I'll still vote D every time unless there's something terribly wrong with the Dem candidate - like he doesn't support women's right to 100% uninterrupted control over their own bodies.

[Demsrule86]

38. As someone said on the Tom Hartman show today...keep criticizing the Democrat party

and you will keep electing republicans.

[KPN]

62. Lol. I see it exactly the other way around.

SHUT UP and FALL IN LINE is not an inspiring message. Constructive criticism is a good thing. Sometimes it feels personal but it's really not and shouldn't be taken that way.

Sounds pretty pedantic, No? Well, that's about how you and those who chastise critiques here feel to some of us who value and present constructive assessment/introspection/criticism.

I know. We've got it all wrong ... our assessments BS, etc., etc.

You may have the last word ...

[Demsrule86]

68. with all the criticism the Democratic party took in 2016...they lost.

It doesn't matter how 'you see it." It is reality. And the criticism presented here would cause us to lose...and is different depending on the person...go after Trump voters, invite Pro-life in, don't go after Trump voters, don't take money, take money...and on and on. Vote Democratic that solves it all!

[stevenleser]

82. That's because no one said shut up and fall in line

That's a line folks invented to manufacture outrage when they didn't get their way.

[Demsrule86]

91. There was constant criticism of the Democratic Party both during the primary and

the election...much by Trump supporters, Greens Russian supporters like Stein),Russian trolls and bots...the so called left of left (what do we call those who claim to support us while attacking us?)were played.

[KPN]

100. That's a matter of perspective.

Let's not debate the primaries okay?

[Demsrule86]

90. Shut up and fall in line sounds way better than President Trump (gag).

Vote Democratic always.

[KPN]

101. I would guess most here, if not all, DID vote Democratic and always do.

That's really not the question here. It's about how do we get those who didn't. Self-assessment, constructive criticism and appropriate course adjustment are standard practices in any successful venture. Why damper them here? We are all Democrats, no?

[Demsrule86]

103. I would hope so...but some progressives or so they call themselves didn't.

And they should have voted for Clinton...no exceptions. They are as guilty as any Republican...worse in my opinion.

[KPN]

104. I personally do not know any registered Democrats who voted for someone other than Hillary

in the GE. But that's just me. I do think the big prize is among declared Independents and millennials who decided not to vote or voted for Stein given the big party candidates. I also think a lot of them would have voted for Bernie were he the D nominee, but that's something we'll never know for sure and water under the bridge.

[Demsrule86]

105. I know some...my older kids friends voted for Stein even though my daughter tried to

stop them...they are sorry now...with the student loan gestapo knocking at their door. Agreements are no longer being honored.

[Demsrule86]

89. Vote Democratic always, and if you want to lose ...keep up

the 'pointing our of what they feel are significant Democratic Party failures'...that will do it.

[KPN]

98. It's party members pointing out problems to the party and the

other party members. If the party can't navigate that successfully then it is probably doomed as you seem to speculate. It is what it is and the party needs to and better deal with it if we are going to prevail. Stifling internal dissent hasn't seemed to work thus far.

[Demsrule86]

99. I don't agree...no one will vote for a party its own member consider shit...you talk up your

party in order to gain voters...vote Democratic and tell people why your party is their best choice always.

[mcar]

41. +1000!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. Yup

[Vinca]

3. Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. "Normal" is now "radical."

[Foamfollower]

4. OFFS!

[Madam45for2923]

5. No, it means I am not gonna work with Democrats to get things done, you cannot make me!

It means I just wanna take down the Dems -and to the Repubs all I got to say is : "As you where"

To the repubs I say: You not gonna hear peep from me. You poor economic blah blah blah you!

To the Dems I say: Step 1: Look at the foam coming out of my mouth and the fumes coming out of my eyes. Step 2 :You must do as I say unless you wanna go back to step 1.

To the Dems I say: I come here to tell you in my favorite authoritarian voice what you MUST do and think! I don't come here to unite and work together. Hell no, am too pure. I will bark at DEMS but not converse, not work together.

It means I am pure and perpetually in a huff b/c I'm so damn pure and I just know better.



TheMastersNemesis
0. Radical Left Is A Myth And A Lie. Common Decency/Sense Now Framed Radical.

If you want a decent job or a decent life with clean air, water, health care and some sense of social justice you are framed as radical. If you want whet FDR proposed you are radical. The radical left would be communist. And there is virtually no communist party.




DEMS do not want decent jobs, decent life with clean air, water, health care and some sense of social justice?

LOL! HAHAHA! What a freaking lie this is. It is like the question, when did you stop hitting your wife? The premise of the question starts with a LIE. Good one! Good try!

[Demsrule86]

92. +1000 MADAM

Those are Democratic values...and people who are the base of a party always vote said party and don't have to be 'excited' into voting. The latter can not be considered reliable.

[Nonhlanhla]

6. What is decent or common sense about essentially supporting Trump?

Susan Sarandon just being the most famous example. There is no decency or common sense in not realizing that, in order to get the things we progressives want, we need to be part of the Democratic coalition instead of being the spoilers. Why would the Democratic Party pay attention to a bunch of petulant people who refuse to be part of the coalition the moment they don't get 100% of what they want?

I'm as left wing as they come, but I also realize that in the American system the coalitions form before the elections (in contrast to European systems where they tend to form after the elections), and that if you want to exert pressure to get what you want (or at least some of what you want), you need to exert pressure within the coalition.

[whathehell]

7. Yes, it's all part of the Right's aim of destroying The New Deal programs of FDR

like Social Security and Unionization and all those so-called 'entitlement' programs that benefit most Americans

Most of the Dems (Elizabeth Warren is but one exception) are too lame to identify and successfully counter it.

[Madam45for2923]

8. Yay morning take-down of the DEMS! Yumm with my breakfast! weeh!

Most Dems, eh?





whathehell
7. Yes, it's all part of the Right's aim of destroying The New Deal programs of FDR

like Social Security and Unionization and all those so-called 'entitlement' programs that benefit most Americans

Most of the Dems (Elizabeth Warren is but one exception) are too lame to identify and successfully counter it.

[whathehell]

9. Sorry about that..

but I'm hardly the only one around here to make that observation.

[brer cat]

10. This is the most inane OP I have ever seen. nt

[whathehell]

14. Really?...Care to explain?

[brer cat]

15. Issues that ALL Democrats support cannot be

attributed to or claimed exclusively by a "wing" of the party.

[Demsrule86]

17. they call themselves the 'base'

which they are not ... a 'base' has your back and doesn't take their ball and go home...these are right leaning independents who claim to want all the things in the OP but don't really or they would not enable the GOP...it is like the Greens pretending to care about the environment.

[whathehell]

19. Wrong..

Unless you know of any democrats who are against New Deal programs..Do you?

[brer cat]

22. I have no idea why you are asking that.

I said these were issues that ALL Democrats support. Maybe you should be asking that of the OP.

[Demsrule86]

39. The new deal is the past ...we need to keep what have and move on to new and better

ideas for the 21st century ...wallowing in Roosevelt is akin to wallowing in Reagan for the right...the past is past. We keep the good and toss the rest. Roosevelt save this country in my opinion but was not perfect...he put the Japanese in camps and his new deal never extended to POC. We can improve upon his ideas. Johnson is my hero...he gave us Medicare, medicaid and civil rights.

[whathehell]

49. So is the Constitution..

Would you like to toss that as well?..Tell it to Constitutional scholars who "wallow" in it, lol.

Sorry, but dismissing, or minimizing something solely because it's "in the past" is meaningless. As for Johnson, I guess you

didn't realize that Johnson's Civil. Rights legislation was started by President Kennedy, and that Medicare and Medicaid are considered extensions

of the New Deal as they were built on Roosevelt's vision. Roosevelt actually wanted the more comprehensive National Healthcare, but died

before it could be introduced. Like Social Security, It would certainly have included PoC.

[Demsrule86]

50. We already tossed slavery.

Kennedy would never have gotten civil rights through...not in a million years. Roosevelt is the past he was a good president...but we need to march into the future with new ideas for this century.

[whathehell]

52. "Kennedy would never have gotten Civil rights through"...Really? How would you know?

Anything to back up your almost comical self-assurance on that?

Sorry, but on this board, we expect such sweeping assertions to be backed up with more than undocumented "opinion".

[Demsrule86]

53. No he wouldn't Johnson basically sacrificed re-election in order to pass

civil rights. Kennedy would not have done so...and Kennedy did not have the abilities that Johnson had as a Congressional insider.

"Admittedly, Congress remained dominated by a conservative coalition of Republicans and Dixiecrats. But Kennedy himself did not try to rally Americans to his cause in favor of pushing the Democratic agenda. He was necessarily keen on foreign affairs, but his foremost domestic ambition was to stimulate even greater economic growth by enacting tax cuts for capital and the rich, which is why conservatives might lay claim to him. Only when liberals and labor and civil-rights activists seriously pressed him for action, and the 1964 reelection campaign began to loom on the far horizon, did he begin to energetically take up his party’s liberal projects. I may be wrong, but I recall more enthusiasm at home for President Lyndon Johnson than there had been for President Kennedy, due no doubt to LBJ’s apparent and amazing determination to enact the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, build a Great Society, and pursue a War on Poverty that included

ehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/the-idolization-of-jfkxpanding Social Security to include Medicare and Medicaid."

I would add that Harvey J Kaye is from the University of Wisconsin and is of the left. I have read several of his books.

[whathehell]

65. Did Harvey J. Kaye tell you that? Must be the gospel truth then, Lol

Perhaps you don't realize it, but academics and historians differ in their opinions, and to get a balanced view on a situation, you have to read a number of them, not just one.

Even if Harvey's theory is correct, it hardly eliminates the credit due JFK for initiating the legislation.

As for Kaye, I don't know if the "home" he references was in the South (where LBJ would be a natural favorite) but I was "at home" in Pennsylvana at the time and my recollection is quite different (Yes, I lived through all this). JFK was extremely popular in the Northeast, LBJ not so much

[Demsrule86]

66. JFK did nothing on the domestic agenda...and I doubt he would have.

He lowered taxes which is why the right trys to claim him..Johnson was the true hero...Camelot was a fairy tale.

[whathehell]

72. My ass he didn't...Heard of The Minimum Wage..He fucking created it, as well as

Last edited Fri Jun 2, 2017, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

the Community Mental Health Care system and The Peace Corps. Again, he had LESS than one term and Saving the Planet from World War III (No, you don't remember Cuban Missile Crisis either) took up a LOT of his time.

Oh..and those taxes?,,,,He lowered them from 90% on the Highest Earners to 70% BUT closed the Loopholes...A 70%

tax rate WITH closed loopholes....Seen anything like that lately?...FYI: The taxes on the Rich are NOW 38% and

they want them even lower...Much as I liked Obama, he certainly didn't pull off anything like that.

See ya

[Demsrule86]

75. Really?

"The first U.S. minimum wage was only $.25, a staunch difference from today’s $7.25. The minimum wage was first imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and affected approximately one quarter of the work force at the time."

MY my, how Roosevelt's minimum wage has grown...

[Demsrule86]

67. I don't appreciate your condescension. I enjoy reading and have read

a number of books on Johnson and Kennedy...sometimes it is only through history that you see the true picture...a murdered president, young and vital with a family...very appealing. But when you look at what Kennedy actually did...I just don't think the myth lives up to the reality.

[whathehell]

70. I didn't appreciate your arrogance..

Last edited Fri Jun 2, 2017, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

As one one who actually experienced what you've only read about, I can assure you there's no "myth" concerning the legislative record Kennedy lived long enough to achieve, as it's a matter of record. What you refer to as "myth" more likely concerns the "Camelot" magic --.The spell of youth, charm
and optimism he, with his family, were able to cast over most living then.

Given your age, your inability to appreciate that is neither a mystery to me nor of any particular interest.

[Demsrule86]

71. How do you know that? I don't recall mentioning my age. And I was not arrogant...perhaps you should

consider your own behavior. It seems to me you fell hook and sinker for the JFK myth...and that is fine with me, but honestly it isn't nice to insult other posters who don't agree with you...it is after all a discussion.

[whathehell]

73. Heh heh..

There are ways of telling and, again, there is no "myth" about anything YOU purport to care about..His accomplishments
are a matter of RECORD...Try reading then sometime so you don't embarrass yourself again with false statements like "JFK did nothing on the Domestic Front".

I think it may be time to say 'adieu"...Please make yourself at home on the Big I list.

[Demsrule86]

74. Thank you it is an honor to make your 'big I' I list; I am sure it will be a long one!

I prefer to discuss issue with people who do not get angry when someone does not agree with them...au revoir.

[Demsrule86]

58. I would also add that any Roosevelt Democrat would have voted for Clinton in the

election. Thus I don't know who the folks left of left might be (Republican enablers or Greens?) but they are not and never will be Roosevelt Democrats who understood the terrible price that would be paid if Republicans won. My Grandpa told me thousands maybe millions died before Roosevelt's election...help came to late for many...so the people that sabotage Democrats can call themselves anything they choose but they are not and never were Roosevelt Democrats.

[alarimer]

11. It has been framed that way, yes. In reality, the right-wing is the radical wing.

And some Democrats have certainly bought into the notion that "we can't have nice things" like single payer health care.

Personally, I put most of the blame on Bill Clinton, who went along with radical Republicans (mass incarceration, welfare "reform", repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA) in order to win. But that set back progressive causes for a generation.

I really think Democrats need to pledge to FDR's Second Bill of Rights (from his Inaugural Address in 1944). If that's radical, sign me up!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights.

The Second Bill of Rights is a list of rights that was proposed by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.[1] In his address, Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize and should now implement, a second "bill of rights." Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." His remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:

Employment, Food, clothing, and leisure with enough income to support them
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Social security
Education

[Demsrule86]

18. Bernie Sanders voted for the crime bill.

President Clinton was very successful for his right leaning times and saved us from a rightie court with Breyer and Ginsberg...you want a liberal president , give him a liberal congress....where were all the left folks in 94? Not voting that is for sure.

[alarimer]

23. The point remains that his administration was one of the most damaging to liberal causes

Probably in the history of this country.

If Sanders voted for the crime bill, well, that was a massive error. So was any Iraq war vote by anyone else. We ALL know better now how damaging both those things were.

[Demsrule86]

40. That is not true...that is revisionist history to suit your current ideology.

President Clinton was a fine president...the 90's were way better than what came later.

[stevenleser]

83. It's amazing that person doesnt see the irony of their comment in relation to the OP

and that's before you get into the revisionism you talked about.

[Demsrule86]

51. I completely disagree...I thank God that Bill Clinton put an end to a 12 year run for the

GOP holding the White House.

[emulatorloo]

79. Nope. Reagan, Bush. And now Trump admin is the most damaging to liberal causes in the US

[ehrnst]

21. Most of the developed world uses multi-payer mechanisms for universal health care

For us to insist on nothing but Single Payer ignores that other methods might be more realistic and feasible.

It's not about Democrats "not wanting nice things." It's about looking at the data, and listening to non-partisan health policy analysts.

Don't make Single Payer the only way to universal healthcare into dogma, like the right makes getting rid of Planned Parenthood as the only way to stop abortion is dogma.

[alarimer]

24. I meant to say universal health care.

And you are correct in that there are many other models than Canada's or Britain's NHS. BUT we have the mechanism already in place in our Medicare. And the real villains are insurance companies, with their obscene profits and CEO compensation, to say nothing of the massive overhead costs. The real issues is having health care tied to your job, which adds expenses to products (like cars) and also traps people in careers or positions they may not really want.

[Demsrule86]

42. Single payer could be the holy grail...not saying it is...but it doesn't matter.

Last edited Fri Jun 2, 2017, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

We can't get it or anything else now...saving the ACA is so important and about all we can expect. Elections have consequences...all those who voted for a gorilla or anyone but Clinton cost us our chance at single payer ...we might have been able to get a public option and lowered the age of medicare...now no way. Reality bites.

[KPN]

33. +11111!

[KingCharlemagne]

12. The demise of the Black Panther Party in the early 70s spelled the end of any

real "radical left" in the U.S. (J. Edgar Hoover called the BPP the most serious national security threat the U.S. faced, which gives BPP members serious bragging rights, imo.)

The extreme leftist organizations that remain are, for the most part, somewhat akin to fringe-like cults (or newspper promotion circles I'm thinking of the Revolutionary Communist Party and International Socialist Organization, among others.

[NCTraveler]

13. I think the phrase is used these day as a descriptor of right wing enablers on the left.

For example, Susan Sarandon. The "we must burn it down to build it back up" crowd. LIV's who are seriously limited by their own intellect. It becomes a large group when you recognize how many were willing to spread bullshit like HA Goodman, the "Sane Progressive", and the mentally bankrupt thoughts of Stein. They swim among us.

Republicans use it for anything left of McCain.

[KPN]

29. True, it is. But it's also used pejoratively by many moderate

Democrats -- many right here at DU. Seems important to recognize and point out the flaw in that perspective. There is nothing radical in wanting a level playing field.

[NCTraveler]

31. By far is is most often used here to describe the likes of Stein, Goodman, etc.

And yes, it is and should be used as a pejorative when describing these right wing enablers.

What you mention does happen and I am not dismissing it. Then again, I am far to the left of the party structure and have been called a moderate by members here in a pejorative manner. It's no sweat off my back and feel it is more a statement on the person making the BS charge.

[KPN]

34. BS charge? What BS charge?

[NCTraveler]

35. I'm not sure how to reword it to make it more clear.

"Then again, I am far to the left of the party structure and have been called a moderate by members here in a pejorative manner. It's no sweat off my back and feel it is more a statement on the person making the BS charge."

[KPN]

36. Oh ... thanks for that. Should have read your post again. It is clear.

I thought you were possibly referring to the thread generally. My bad. And, BTW, I appreciate your open-mindedness.

[betsuni]

16. FDR: Japanese-American internment camps: WHY TO GO! YAY!

[whathehell]

25. Besuni: One mistake invalidates ALL other accomplishments...Riiiight!!

Nice try, but historians have already ranked him *Third Greatest President in U.S. history

Even if he was the villain you believe he was, as a Democrat, you can hardly argue against the value of the New Deal programs.



* Some ranked him Second greatest.

[stevenleser]

60. I'm not sure you are getting that person's point. nt

[whathehell]

63. I don't know how I could miss it..

as it wasn't expressed with a lot of subtlety.

[stevenleser]

84. I still don't think you got it. nt

[whathehell]

85. That's okay..

you're free to continue thinking that.

[stevenleser]

86. Nice of you to acknowledge that other folks have freedom of thought, as if there is an alternative.

[whathehell]

87. Aw now, don't be like that..

just because I chose not to take the bait...

[JI7]

64. it wasn't a mistake

[bettyellen]

93. The implementation of the New Deal ended up creating white wealth....

At the expense of women and POC. Bu we saddled the Clinton's support of three strikes your out for VIOLENT FELONS with destroying the black community when it was local conservatives that extended it to non violent /drug offenses. So some unintended consequences are completely forgivable. Others are a cudgel.

[whathehell]

26. P. S. It's "way" to go, not "why".

[malaise]

20. Anything that is not RW BS is now radical

Resist

[KPN]

27. Amen.

[SpankMe]

28. On Fox News this morning...

They even had ex-Clinton aides (who are still pro-Democrat) saying that the left has become radical. It's a ridiculous assertion. But, since the right has gone off the rails, the media feels obligated to say the left is radical, too, in order to uphold the narrative that "both sides are guilty" of the "sharp divisions" in Washington.

This false equivalency thing is infuriating.

[disillusioned73]

32. K&R..

Corporatists wants nothing more than to destroy what FDR(among others) created.. and they are surely getting close to succeeding at this point.. assisted by many along this sad road

[Demsrule86]

43. Yeah well the 'left of left' or whatever should have gotten off their derieres and voted...because

if you elect GOP types...you are going to lose stuff. I guess maybe the should have voted for the candidates with the "D" next to their name.

[NurseJackie]

46. Yes. This. Thank you!

[Demsrule86]

55. I was reading an article where an older gentleman described his parent's

attitudes towards John Kennedy...he was not their first choice but being "Roosevelt Democrats of course they voted for him". We need more of that sort attitude and less whining about the Democratic Party by those who only enable Republicans with this sort of behavior.

[NurseJackie]

61. It's the ultimate (and worst) example of self-serving vanity that I can imagine! These...

... (so-called) "progressives" who refuse to vote for the PARTY'S NOMINEE do so because of their own pride, or their own hurt feelings. While such behavior (I'll call it a temper-tantrum) may satisfy whatever "need" they believe they have, it comes at an immeasurable expense to others... the most in need, the most vulnerable, actual HUMAN BEINGS who aren't smirking bug-eyed actresses worth fifty million dollars.

It must be nice to be able to AFFORD the LUXURY or such SELFISH INDULGENCES.

[Demsrule86]

69. And I see a similarity in indifference to suffering of people in both the far right

and the left left or what you want to call them...not progressives in my book and not the base which by definition votes for the Democrat.

[Trumpocalypse]

44. No what your peddling is a myth and a lie.

The problem is many on the left require ideological purity and constantly made the perfect the enemy of the good. That cause many Dems to run to the middle to get elected.

[NurseJackie]

48. Yes. This, too. Thank you!

[jalan48]

45. Radical left is used by the corporate media to narrow the acceptable political spectrum.

We have a radical right that is OK with killing innocent people (recent Portland killings) but nothing that is called "radical left" comes close to this. Radical left questions the current economic set-up and there in lies the real reason for the brainwashing by our big money media.

[NurseJackie]

47. No it's not. It exists.

(EXCERPT) ===================================
If you want a decent job or a decent life with clean air, water, health care and some sense of social justice you are framed as radical. If you want whet FDR proposed you are radical. The radical left would be communist. And there is virtually no communist party.
===================================
I think what you've done is to create a "strawman". People can want those things without being "radical" or "fringe" or "kooks". I assure you, however, that the "radical left" does indeed exist.

[Fresh_Start]

54. The radical left is not a myth

it includes those who think we have to burn it to the ground in order to move forward

it includes those who think that others who agree with them on principles but disagree with them on methods are neoliberals or corporatists or any of the many smears spread here about the majority of democratic voters

it includes those who are too pure to compromise to allow us to take a tiny step forward versus standing in place or sliding backwards

it includes those who think that people who agree with them 90% of the time...but not 100% of the time are republicans in sheep's clothing

[JHan]

57. ++++++++++++

[Demsrule86]

59. +1000

[Orsino]

56. Been that way for a long time.

It's a cheap pre-negotiating tactic, dismissing the opposition until it begins to make concessions. It works because it's backed by shit-tons of money and media.

[Progressive dog]

77. The radical left does exist and has actually run nations in the past

Since the radical left is a philosophy, the number of members it has, has nothing to do with whether it exists.
The radical left had nothing to do with FDR, who was not supported by either the communist or socialist party. The radical left, like all radical parties in democracies tries to derive legitimacy from non-radical (usually deceased) popular politicians by retroactively redefining those politicians. FDR was not a radical leftist. Robespierre was a radical leftist as were Lenin. Marx, Mao, and Stalin.

[beachbum bob]

78. radical left are those who rather sacrifice the future of america by not supporting

the lesser of 2 evils and gave us Trump, the very same mentality which gave america 8 years of George W Bush and the death and destruction he caused.

radical left is a real thing and what they do and don't do have had HUGE consequences on our country and the history of the world

don;t try to deflect that this segment does not exist

[emulatorloo]

81. Always enjoy yr posts and yr hyperbolic flair. But those are mainstream Democratic values.

They aren't "radical left."

So this is a bit of a strawman.

[TheMastersNemesis]

94. I Do Not Believe I Am That Hyperbolic At All. Here Is Why.

For one thing just about everything I feared about what Reagan started has come to pass. Even though we have a good labor numbers and supposedly full employment, there are some really structural problems that have severely eroded job security and long term employment. Many of our institutions are compromised and the damage is not so obvious in a time that the media under reports what is going on.

What American expect from employment has been eroded. FDR put out a 2nd economic bill of rights about what constitutes a stable society. The Democrats and expectations have shifted to the right. Decent pay and decent employment with a reasonable safety net are not labeled extreme or radical left. Work protections are framed as radical idea.

Health care is framed as a privilege and what you get is based on your value to society. We have morphed into a merit based system where usefulness dictates. The AHCA that will take away health care for 24 million is justified as necessary. Even though AHCA is widely unpopular it is still being moved forward.

[emulatorloo]

95. Fair enough. Trump is definitely in the tradition of Reagan but much much worse.

[TheMastersNemesis]

96. I Have Followed Developments Since Reagan. He Started So Many Bad Trends.

Trump is the fruition of Reaganism on steroids. Changes are so vast it is hard to elaborate them. I see the Trump cabinet as what Reagan wanted to do. Every Cabinet pick is in place to dismantle and sabotage the department's mission.

I worked for DOL for 24 years and I could witness the erosion of labor law enforcement back the. Right now wage theft is rampant . There are now very few workers enforcing laws that protect workers wages. I saw our own state wage and labor division gutted. So if you do not get your paycheck or your employer falsified your time card it is hard to have that issue addressed.

Many of our agencies will start to cut back service as employees leave and are not replaced. The GOP wants Social Security checks to lag or environmental degradation to happen.

I worked with a lot of programs at DOL that are now either gone or deficient. The GOP has successfully gutted unemployment insurance and workman's compensation and work site protections. Just in trucking alone there are a lot of safety regs that will go unenforced.

[Mosby]

88. nice strawman.

[Arazi]

97. Agreed 100%

[beachbum bob]

102. Radical left is not what you think is, they are the type who

Expressed not supporting the lesser of 2 evils and knowingly gave us Trump...the same minded people gave us George w bush...the radical left no more represents a democratic vision than the batshit crazy teaparty types represents republican values.