Is making the act of flag burning a felony progressive?
Is dismissing free speech advocates by saying "the usual people are going to complain about the 1st amendment" in response to talk about legislating strong encryption progressive?
Is an interventionist foreign policy progressive?
Is free trade progressive? What about allowing enough wiggle room with claimed opposition to the TPP to allow you to support it in the end (as the business community expects her to) after the primary (that would be what we call lying) ? Is that progressive?
Is it progressive to state that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman? Is it progressive to advocate for Mother/Father on State documents rather than Parent 1/2 or Guardian 1/2 ?
Is receiving huge contributions from the industries you will be regulating progressive?
Is siding with your corporate donors in the credit industry progressive when your actions hurt single mothers progressive?
Is receiving money from lobbyists of the private prison industry progressive?
Is it progressive to want those who possess marijuana (which has no known negative health effects) to be put in prison, even when their state deems it legal? What about when your private prison industry lobbyists stand to gain from a higher incarceration rate?
Is it progressive to vote for the PATRIOT act, repeatedly?
Is it progressive to vote against banning the use of cluster bombs which maim and kill innocent children?
Is it progressive to say that a single payer health care system will never ever happen, even though that or something like it (public option) is the only way to get to universal healthcare?
The Democratic party is not progressive. Her being a mainstream Democrat doesn't make her progressive.
I didn't see another discussion thread started, so let's get the ball rolling. Here are the NYT reporting pages for the states voting/caucusing today:
We have the candidate with the best ideas and the FDR Democrats. Let's have a good time tonight. Welcome, and have some
I'm on West Coast time so I'll be here all night!
Here Adam Johnson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive watchdog group, documents some interactions with militant Hillary activists (likely paid shills) at the Donald Trump protest at Columbus Circle, NYC.
It appears as if this creature actually derives enjoyment from telling what appears to be a non-Hillary supporter that he must vote for her in November.
What's more, it is legitimately puzzling, because I was told that a) young white men are Bernie Bros who militantly support their candidate b) Bernie supporters are racist while Hillary supporters are PC as a peach. I'm so confused after watching these videos, trying to reconcile them with the media talking points.
This part in particular stuck out to me:
I thought only Bernie supporters could be tone-deaf and treat voters as a monolith to be won and used as prizes.
It is an insulting slur meant to cast Bernie supporters as a monolith of privileged Americans who are caught in the fad of celebrity rather than thinking critically about the issues and moving the country forward. But I think D. Raja Sandor can explain it best so I'll let him do the talking (and the phonebanking!) for me:
Source: Time Magazine, http://time.com/4260441/super-tuesday-2-primary-voting-election-2016-photos-ohio-florida/
Speaking with reporters Tuesday, Business Roundtable president John Engler cited the Clintons' family history of changing their stances on trade deals, and downplayed the significance of Hillary Clinton's current opposition to the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by President Obama.
"There's history in the family, in the Clinton family, where President Clinton was opposed to NAFTA in its current form before the election and then was the champion in the '90s," Engler said, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated in the early 1990s and implemented by Bill Clinton.
"I think that there's nothing new about candidates running who are opposed to trade deals," Engler said, noting that Clinton has not spelled out specific objections to the TPP, a 12-nation trade deal.
"What would be newsworthy is if after they were elected they held the same position," Engler concluded. "That's to be determined."
Also from the article: "The Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs of large companies, has been among the top advocates for the Pacific-nation trade pact."
I read the NYT's analysis of Super Tuesday to find two real gems for how voters are "thinking" through their vote:
Bernie Sanderss odds of getting the nomination are maybe not that great, said Mitchell Westall, 19, of Suffolk, Va., who added that he had been intrigued by the Vermont senators vision. So Im looking at the other Democrat.
Not to be outdone in the competition for most ludicrous logic for backing one's chosen candidate, Ms. Hermer chose pretzel logic that would make a certain contingent on DU very proud.
Through such a pragmatic frame, Ms. Hermer saw a silver lining to Mrs. Clintons ties to Wall Street, which Mr. Sanders has assailed as emblematic of a rigged campaign finance system: She knows how to earn money and keep her campaign running, Ms. Hermer said.
This may be the most appalling statement I have seen yet today in support of a Democratic candidate. If that is Clintonian pragmatism for the 2016 election, deal me out.
Reaching even lower, the NYT declined to quote any actual Sanders supporters for why they were voting (who knows, they might actually have a substantive response, we couldn't have something as radical as that in the Grey Lady!); the lone Sanders voter was doing so simply to push Hillary leftwards.
I wonder sometimes if Idiocracy is debuting earlier than expected.