It's not purism --- that's just lazy thinking (Reply #109)

In the discussion thread: Naomi Klein: Neoliberalism is to blame ... [View all]

Thu Jan 5, 2017, 07:09 AM

nikto (3,284 posts)

109. It's not purism --- that's just lazy thinking

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2017, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)

They're called, values.

Mine go back to the 50s, and evolved thru the following decades, thru JFK, LBJ,
Nixon, Carter, Reagan, BushI, etc, up to now.

And yes, I supported Bernie.

But I forgive you, man.

You're just scared, as many folks are.
I am too.

FDR's classic advice helps now.

Just don't let fear cloud your vision, as it has for many these days.

Below is a link to a blog post I have made.
If you are serious about knowing where I'm coming from, check it out:

http://thesuspicionist.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-can-progressives-evaluate-trumps.html

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

141 replies	Author	Time	Post
Naomi Klein: Neoliberalism is to blame ... [View all]	rainy	Jan 2017	OP
Seems to me	Tavarious Jackson	Jan 2017	#1
Great article.	tecelote	Jan 2017	#2
One more blind person describing the elephant...	TreasonousBastard	Jan 2017	#3
You wonder why Bill Clinton's	truebluegreen	Jan 2017	#11
Riiiight. And the partisan Republican Congress had nada to do with those bills, right?	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2017	#83
This is a complete misunderstanding of Clinton and the role of the President.	OrwellwasRight	Jan 2017	#135
No. It's a clear understanding of the role of the president - and his power, which is limited.	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2017	#136
Wow.	OrwellwasRight	Jan 2017	#137
OMG. A political novice. Now you sound (not saying you are) like a Republican. First you	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2017	#138
Faux News and Breitbart?	OrwellwasRight	Jan 2017	#139
Basically, it is POLICY that counts, not messaging	nikto	Jan 2017	#4
you got it!	rainy	Jan 2017	#6
It's simple, really	nikto	Jan 2017	#13
People like that are in the Democratic Party for a couple of reasons --	Nay	Jan 2017	#32
That's a very intelligent answer	nikto	Jan 2017	#47
I think it's because African Americans and others...	Buckeye_Democrat	Jan 2017	#45
One of FDR's biggest battles was getting the southern Democrats ...	nikto	Jan 2017	#53
Yep.	Buckeye_Democrat	Jan 2017	#57
You mean like free college for everyone when many graduate HS without	bettyellen	Jan 2017	#132
+ a brazillion	truebluegreen	Jan 2017	#12
This is so obvious to US, why isn't it obvious to everybody on this BBS?	nikto	Jan 2017	#15
I don't know.	truebluegreen	Jan 2017	#21
Wrong. It is about messaging. And about racism/sexism. And about Comey and Russia.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#23
You use the word, "Progressive" too loosely	nikto	Jan 2017	#49
No that person uses it just fine. You use it as if you own the term. You don't. nt	stevenleser	Jan 2017	#50
Unclear answer---Please explain	nikto	Jan 2017	#56
No reply. No content. No substance.	nikto	Jan 2017	#122
Very well started nikto.	lastone	Jan 2017	#65
Checkout my Progressive blog, you might like it ...	nikto	Jan 2017	#112
First of all "corporatist" doesn't mean what you think it means.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#79
+1000000	JHan	Jan 2017	#80
Thank you, DanTex! Thank you for the eye-opening facts that too many on the left refuse to	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2017	#84
It's not purism --- that's just lazy thinking	nikto	Jan 2017	#109
Purists believe that their values are everyone's values. Purists believe that anything short of	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2017	#116
Post removed	Post removed	Jan 2017	#119
You are a good advocate ..... However	Rilgin	Jan 2017	#99
He didn't "quickly" abandon the public option.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#100
Own what his decision was	Rilgin	Jan 2017	#101
I will, happily.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#102
Yes he said he wanted it. That is different than fighting for it.	Rilgin	Jan 2017	#103
If you can explain to me how he was going to change Lieberman and Baucus's minds, please go ahead.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#105
Exactly	Rilgin	Jan 2017	#106
It wasn't a "sacrifice" because the public option was already dead.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#107
You try to too hard.	Rilgin	Jan 2017	#117
I guess it depends what one means by "fight".	DanTex	Jan 2017	#118
Excellent answer	nikto	Jan 2017	#124
Good, patient answer	nikto	Jan 2017	#121
Folks on this board have been hyper-sensitive about certain words for a while now	nikto	Jan 2017	#114
Yes, some of us prefer words to be used correctly and accurately.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#115
Post removed	Post removed	Jan 2017	#120
Name-calling instead of logical arguments.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#131
Centrists on DU sometimes call themselves Progressive.	OrwellwasRight	Jan 2017	#140
"If you went to HRC's website..."	Docreed2003	Jan 2017	#63
I agree with you, messaging needs to be much better.	DanTex	Jan 2017	#72
These policies were on her website she kept referring to---That did a lot of good, didn't it?	nikto	Jan 2017	#110
Old-time Democrats like me will never accept today's more economically Conservative-leaning Party	nikto	Jan 2017	#113
Oh that Clinton "machine"- one would think Hillary had been president for the last 24 years	delisen	Jan 2017	#5
She's right, the left keeps moving to the right to get those donor dollars and now we have an	rainy	Jan 2017	#8
agreed...	ewagner	Jan 2017	#10
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	nikto	Jan 2017	#16
That simply is not true.	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#77
There is no proof they can not win, either.	Exilednight	Jan 2017	#89
Yeah ...Bernie lost the primary.	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#91
Bernie lost due to strategy, not because of his message.	Exilednight	Jan 2017	#104
He lost because the press didn't let the people hear his message.	rainy	Jan 2017	#134
+1! eom	BlueMTexpat	Jan 2017	#48
true	quaker bill	Jan 2017	#7
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	nikto	Jan 2017	#17
the problem is conservatism, not liberalism	Fast Walker 52	Jan 2017	#27
Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy	Fiendish Thingy	Jan 2017	#54
Just because you don't like the word, doesn't mean the meaning is wrong;	dionysus	Jan 2017	#67
that's a fine definition... but it doesn't fit Hillary Clinton, as she often was called a neoliberal	Fast Walker 52	Jan 2017	#70
I have no part in that debate. Nt	dionysus	Jan 2017	#71
They don't like it because IT APPLIES TO THEM	nikto	Jan 2017	#123
I love Naomi but this is a cheap argument. Neoliberalism is just a trendy term for the status quo	Fast Walker 52	Jan 2017	#9
Ok. But "conservatism" has infiltrated the Democratic Party,	truebluegreen	Jan 2017	#14
Yup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	nikto	Jan 2017	#19
the New Deal died with Reagan... and liberal Democrats have a bad track record of getting elected	Fast Walker 52	Jan 2017	#26
Yes there is a reason.	truebluegreen	Jan 2017	#28
am I right in assuming you think Sanders could have beat Trump?	Fast Walker 52	Jan 2017	#29
I think almost anyone else would have beaten Trump.	truebluegreen	Jan 2017	#30
IMHO, NO Dem or Independent ...	LenaBaby61	Jan 2017	#66
Agreed. Looking back on the Clinton administration, we can see that many	Nay	Jan 2017	#34
You really want to find the Democratic equivalent of Trump?	ismnotwasm	Jan 2017	#40
No, I want a democrat with some conviction and the ability to project it and convince others	Nay	Jan 2017	#68
The GOP spent years and billions convincing people...	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#76
Maybe I should have phrased it as "Dems SHOULD HAVE blah, blah,	Nay	Jan 2017	#81
Yes we do...and the states are most important now...	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#82
Intelligent answer	nikto	Jan 2017	#125
I agree on your feeling about the differing terms used	nikto	Jan 2017	#18
yes, a much better term!	Fast Walker 52	Jan 2017	#25
You beat me to it re: the use of that word as Klein used it.	stevenleser	Jan 2017	#52
No she uses the term correctly	Fiendish Thingy	Jan 2017	#55
No, she doesn't. That's bullshit. It does not apply to Democrats. It MIGHT apply to Libertarians	stevenleser	Jan 2017	#59
that's my impression exactly	Fast Walker 52	Jan 2017	#73
Bingo	Boomer	Jan 2017	#20
I'm with you	nikto	Jan 2017	#111
Yes, 1000 times, yes. This is what tacking to the center as corporatists has brought us.	TonyPDX	Jan 2017	#22
Right...because we have so much power...if you wanted to do that ...then electing Hillary was the	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#75
Great article!	PatsFan87	Jan 2017	#24
So busy attacking the mythical "neoliberalism" - forgot to defend against the real live fascists.	baldguy	Jan 2017	#31
It's not mythical	killbotfactory	Jan 2017	#33
Noeliberals are Nazis & fascists?	baldguy	Jan 2017	#35
Right?	ismnotwasm	Jan 2017	#39
How the hell did you get that from my post?	killbotfactory	Jan 2017	#41
From your words.	baldguy	Jan 2017	#42
Yep, let's just pretend neoliberal economic ideas don't exist	killbotfactory	Jan 2017	#44
Let's just pretend that neoliberalism is EXACTLY THE SAME as Nazism.	baldguy	Jan 2017	#46
Take a deep breath, and listen...re-read the posts you are replying to	Fiendish Thingy	Jan 2017	#58
Nope, that person doesnt need to do anything. They understand the real meaning of the word. nt	stevenleser	Jan 2017	#60
It's just another variation of the RW "Democrats same as Republicans" bullshit.	baldguy	Jan 2017	#85
Agreed. And it's tiresome. These folks just need to specify what policies they want that they aren't	stevenleser	Jan 2017	#86
It is how a narrative works.	Rex	Jan 2017	#94
Funny the supposed "liberals" attacking mainstream Dems always seem to use RW talking points.	baldguy	Jan 2017	#108
It's mythical as used by Kline and many here and a poor substitute for actually making an argument	stevenleser	Jan 2017	#51
Trite and superficial, only to the uninformed	Fiendish Thingy	Jan 2017	#61
Intelligent response	nikto	Jan 2017	#126
Well, Wikipedia can be edited	Fiendish Thingy	Jan 2017	#62
K & R	Duppers	Jan 2017	#36
K & R!	jalan48	Jan 2017	#37
Oh for Fucks sake what disingenuous bullshit	ismnotwasm	Jan 2017	#38
Racism Sexism and voter suppression are all real, and I think Klein should have framed her argument	JCanete	Jan 2017	#43
A basic problem in the Democratic party is that neoliberals and traditional call them New Deal	PufPuf23	Jan 2017	#64
Some of them will never come around	nikto	Jan 2017	#128
"A good chunk of Trumps support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda	Starry Messenger	Jan 2017	#69
Trump does not have much support....he won	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#78
Trump didn't rig the system. The system is rigged in favor of Republicans over Democrats every time.	JCanete	Jan 2017	#87
Yes he did. He actively worked with Putin	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#92
If they hacked the machines I agree. If they offered up fake news...well that's a fucking drop	JCanete	Jan 2017	#93
This election was stolen.	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#97
but was it stolen by Russia or the GOP? if by the GOP, well they steal it just about every time	JCanete	Jan 2017	#98
GOP is who stole it	nikto	Jan 2017	#127
Catapulting Trumps propaganda..... not surprised we're seeing this again.	bettyellen	Jan 2017	#133
No naomi, you are to blame...and people like you who refused to support the only	Demsrule86	Jan 2017	#74
Why are you digging up this hot take from seven weeks ago?	Blue_Tires	Jan 2017	#88
There will never be a shortage of people telling me who to blame.	LanternWaste	Jan 2017	#90
K&R	Rex	Jan 2017	#95
F'k Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	nikto	Jan 2017	#129
Klein	milestogo	Jan 2017	#96
Absolutely correct.	Lunabell	Jan 2017	#130
As usual, Klein gets it. My first non-Democratic vote ever 1996 for Greens. Clinton Republican-lite.	snowy owl	Jan 2017	#141

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.