Weve never seen President Obama act like this

[BumRushDaShow]

178. Well now this is where we will need to agree to disagree

Many who are on the different sides have not tried to "shut down" any debate by the other side. There is a difference between name-calling, such as labeling people with certain positions "authoritarian posters" or "turd way posters" or even "Paulites" or "Warrenistas", and pointing out the type of "argumentative tactic" where one tends to describe and predict an outcome of an issue to the most extreme possibility ("hair on fire" = magnification of an issue to an extreme using hyperbolic justifications).

I also believe that the characterization of "blind trust" is actually disingenuous to apply to even the most ardent supporters of the current administration. I expect that nearly all have some disagreements with certain positions that the President has taken over the past 6 years (I certainly do), but those positions (whether as a "compromise" because of requirements to have legislation make it through a heterogeneous Congress) have not risen to the level of declaring the President "the same as Bush" who essentially doesn't belong in office (entirely dismissing critical Democratic agenda items that have come to pass).

It seems that when it comes to definitions of what is "left/liberal/progressive" - there will always be disagreements as to what that means. Pointing to "FDR" as "the standard", completely leaves out the fact that he was one of the epitomes of the "1%", and entire demographics who were essentially "left out" of the party, and suffered under FDR when it came to race relations (where FDR made sure that my WW II Vet father stayed in a segregated army unit or signed off on the internment of innocent Japanese Americans and their children into what amounted to concentration camps). These sort of positions tend to be glossed-over and dismissed as "unimportant" or supposedly "acceptable by society at the time", to many when defining "left/liberal/progressive", because none of these events impacted them or their families/friends... IMHO, that's bullshit and it very much factors into my definition of whether someone is "left/liberal/progressive". Another example might be to point to Truman as the "standard bearer", under whom Taft-Hartley became law (despite his veto). Based on the types of idiotic arguments here on DU, Truman would have been thrown under the bus and lampooned for not "putting on his walking shoes" and waving his magic wand, because he "allowed" Taft-Hartley to remain the law (this argument being due to complete ignorance regarding how bills become laws). There are those who point to Kennedy (another "1%er), who ignored MLK's protests, bowed to Hoover's surveillance of innocent citizens, and eschewed anything to do with Civil Rights, where blacks were being lynched, bombed, and otherwise oppressed via Jim Crow laws (and much of what addressed these issues was enacted under Johnson). And those who point to Johnson - well yes except: Vietnam War. Still others point to Carter, but then between him and his primary contender Ted Kennedy, who was "more liberal", and how could Carter attract the white southerners while trying to hold the black vote?

All of this clearly illustrates what I have argued - each individual has a set of criteria to fit their situations and needs and that will never be homogeneous.

When one characterizes a President as a "self-described Republican" (who has never been or run as a Republican but who has pointed out how extreme the GOP has gotten since the days of Eisenhower, where DUers actually insist that Eisenhower was a "liberal" and considers "self described" as meaning "Ted Cruz style" nut)... but then ignores the individual who is oft-promoted here as the "true voice" of progressives, who herself WAS a Republican and voted as a Republican for most of her adult life including during the destructive Reagan era (and who still holds Republican positions such as promoting school vouchers) - this is why the hypocritical disconnect continues to occur here about what is actually being debated, and the acceptance that "no side" or politician is "perfect".

And what is oft-forgotten is that when it comes to what type of legislation gets passed, it is reflective of the type/positions of the people elected to the U.S. legislature from the states. When both your state parties are mired in corruption (like New Jersey or Florida or New York), then one has much work to do to change that in those states. When folks sit home during the critical state elections, then during census years, the GOP will ultimately re-draw the lines to force the candidates to the right. There are 31 GOP governors out of 50 states and 31 GOP-controlled state legislatures out of 49 bicameral bodies (where 23 of those states are all-GOP).

Hurling epithets at or protesting perceived demagoguery surrounding a President who must work with the legislators that the people allowed to be elected, does not bring about "change". Change comes from the electorate's engagement and local participation in deciding what the agenda should be in an environment where "outsiders" (like the Kochs) can come in and disrupt that process (e.g., when the Kochs pump money into local school board elections and otherwise interfere with local municipalities).

So IMHO, too much is spent on the "national" when the national only reflects what has been let to rot at the state and local, and that is what needs to be dealt with.