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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Has it ever occurred to you that "incrementalism" is really ... [View all]rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)56. She agrees with them on their foreign policies and their economic policies. She agrees
with them on fracking and locking up the minority communities for profit. She agrees with them that medical marijuana shouldn't be legalized unless big pharma can get a cut.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
NO. Incrementalism is bowing down and accepting what the authoritarian gives you.
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#53
It was projection. The ACA for example has set back single payer a decade at least.
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#57
"Incrementalism" Is Akin To... DOING NOTHING! NO CHANGE! THAT IS WHAT GOLDMAN "PAYS" HER FOR!
CorporatistNation
Apr 2016
#22
At least the Republicans have the courage of their convictions. A Rightwing Democrat is a fraud. nt
Romulox
Apr 2016
#23
She agrees with them on their foreign policies and their economic policies. She agrees
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#56
They weren't TRYING to get things passed. They were trying to cut government down to nothing
Ken Burch
Apr 2016
#62
You are in a leaky boat and the water is pooling in the bottom. You are beginning to sink.
Beowulf
Apr 2016
#12
Yes. And when Bernie wins, I fully expect them to try to put a "governor" if you will on him
silvershadow
Apr 2016
#14
Very pathetic for a Hillary backer to try to use a New Deal program to support her.
BillZBubb
Apr 2016
#29
That is pathetic. Sure it has changed. But the initial idea, the birth was a giant step.
BillZBubb
Apr 2016
#36
your subject title is pathetic - and you know it - I never used Social Security in support of
DrDan
Apr 2016
#32
your own words - "we'd never have had the program to begin with. Let alone incrementally change it."
DrDan
Apr 2016
#44
take it up with Dr Elizabeth Segal from Arizona State, Professor in the School of Social Work
DrDan
Apr 2016
#92
Look at the Clinton presidency. The family leave act, which is NOT paid, is the only thing
Skwmom
Apr 2016
#20
Taking small steps forward while regressive policy goals like TPP take giant leaps.
pa28
Apr 2016
#21
It occurred to me that "incrementalism" is used because "trickle down" was already taken
azurnoir
Apr 2016
#28
The powers that be (big money interests and corporations) LOVE incrementalism.
BillZBubb
Apr 2016
#33
Most of the "incremental" legislation passed under Bill Clinton and POTUS Obama
PufPuf23
Apr 2016
#55
Umm.. every time Bernie is forced to get specific on how he'd implement a policy,
ecstatic
Apr 2016
#61
Do you have any evidence to reassure me that Bernie would "work to get us there?" Because I don't.
ecstatic
Apr 2016
#88
It seldom rises to even symbolism, it's a dirt-cheap pacification technique. nt
Umbral18
Apr 2016
#75
It's reluctantly making a move when everybody is shouting: make it already, we are waiting!
Betty Karlson
Apr 2016
#91