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]beedle
(1,235 posts)72. If Hillary is that vulnerable
that you believe a supposedly obscure post on a discussion board will turn into a Hillary 2016 campaign ending Republican advertisement, then I accept your apology for supporting such a walking disaster in the first place.
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