RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 03:13 pm
@Olivier5,
Do you mean I should fall in line with lash and her crew? Not going to happen. I hate Trump because he is a liar and lash and her bunch lie just as blantly by posting opinion as fact just like the Trumpies do.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 05:42 pm
Another example of the Washington Post bashing Sanders and letting every other candidate off the hook
Quote:
Biden is totally unapologetic about badly botching his facts. That’s not good enough.
WP
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 06:10 pm
Tucker ******* Carlson? Way to go, Tulsi. His audience is exactly who you want to be speaking to. His message is precisely the message all good progressives want to promote.
Quote:
"I think the bigger problem is that the whole process really lacks transparency," said presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday’s episode of Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight. One might wonder if this appearance on Tucker Carlson’s White Power Hour was actually an audition to be 2020’s Jill Stein, because nothing says spoiler quite like a Democrat going on Tucker Carlson to complain about the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC made a lot of mistakes in 2016, when its unfair handling of the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders led to the resignation of chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Yet since then they’ve tried extremely hard to reform and show transparency when it comes to the debate criteria. Of course no one is obligated to agree with the DNC or the benchmarks it sets. But while DNC chair Tom Perez might be annoying, he has been completely and utterly transparent about the 2020 primary’s debate criteria.

This time around there is no mystery. There is no fix – or any credible allegations of one. Three months ago, in May, Perez announced that for the September debates a candidate could qualify by both polling more than 2 per cent and by having more than 130,000 unique donors. On 1 August – just 28 days ago – the New York Times ran the following statement: “Candidates will need to have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. They have until Aug. 28 to reach those benchmarks.”

I’m not sure how Gabbard has had trouble understanding these extremely clear benchmarks? Or, even worse, how she can possibly accuse the DNC of lacking “transparency” over its criteria? These benchmarks aren’t creative: they aren’t poetic, but they are very clear...
more here
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 11:54 pm
@Lash,
Where in that space is there any mention of Mother Jones?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 01:01 am
@blatham,
Turning Republicans into progressives is the best thing a progressive can do. Other thinking is asinine.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 01:08 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Turning Republicans into progressives is the best thing a progressive can do. Other thinking is asinine.
Neoconservatism as right-wing progressivism.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 01:11 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Are you and your friends in Germany cooking up a new party? Have fun with that.

Progressives in the US are fighting for healthcare as a right rather than profit-driven, decarceration, and a response to climate change.

Turning Republicans on to these policies is a great goal.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 01:14 am
@RABEL222,
I mean don't say things like "the left is demanted" [sic]. Keep your negativity for the other side, don't parrot Trump.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 01:26 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Are you and your friends in Germany cooking up a new party? Have fun with that.
Neither I nor any my my friends (as far as I know, regarding the latter) are cooking up a new party - we've got about in states' and federal parliaments, plus 20-30 on the ballots, seems to be enough in my opinion.

Lash wrote:
Progressives in the US are fighting for healthcare as a right rather than profit-driven, decarceration, and a response to climate change.
Well, if you consider such is to be progressive....
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 01:38 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Compared to the current situation, these policies are considered progressive in the US.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 05:25 am
Twenty-one percent of Sanders voters’ second choice would be Trump.


https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/4/22/sanders-supporters-would-vote-trump-over-buttigieg-warren-harris
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 05:27 am
@snood,
Trump is a good choice. He protects us from progressives who want to violate our civil liberties for fun.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 07:05 am


Kinkajou51, the Russian bot🇺🇸
@Kinkajou5123
·
9h
How insane is America? Two cops plead guilty to bribery, and using their police car to sexually assault a young woman, 5 years probation. Israel bombs Lebanon, so we put sanctions on Lebanon? All I can say is WTF?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 07:07 am
@snood,
Quote:
Also, 26 percent of those who support Sanders said they would vote for Trump over Warren,
Wow. Definitely the route forward towards progressive goals.

Presuming this is an accurate figure (from polling done last April), simple conspiratorial or romantic nuttiness doesn't explain it. This comes as a consequence of a sustained misinformation campaign within Sanders' "supporter" communities run by folks who do not want a Dem victory. We knew that was going on but this percentage surprises even me. I'm a bit dubious.

That figure is not noted in the Emerson link The Advocate provides but I gather it is in the polling data not written up at the link.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 07:23 am
@blatham,
Blatham’s quoted piece and commentary is just more Third Way Centrist bullshit.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/04/that-poll-about-some-bernie-voters-preferring-trum.html

Excerpt:
This narrative began with a Forbes article about a recent Emerson poll with an incredibly small sample size saying that 26% of Bernie voters would vote for Trump over Elizabeth Warren (that same poll pegged Bernie as the leader for the Democratic nomination). Given that the MSNBC propaganda complex is devoted to the “all Bernie supporters are sexist” narrative, this took off like a rocketship. While there is no reason to doubt the basic findings, any analysis that does not note the incredibly small sample size underlying that percentage is devoted more to the narrative than the facts underlying the situation. Plus, there is a gigantic group of voters left out of this narrative.
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Also, 26 percent of those who support Sanders said they would vote for Trump over Warren,
Wow. Definitely the route forward towards progressive goals.

Presuming this is an accurate figure (from polling done last April), simple conspiratorial or romantic nuttiness doesn't explain it. This comes as a consequence of a sustained misinformation campaign within Sanders' "supporter" communities run by folks who do not want a Dem victory. We knew that was going on but this percentage surprises even me. I'm a bit dubious.

That figure is not noted in the Emerson link The Advocate provides but I gather it is in the polling data not written up at the link.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 07:26 am
@snood,
Snood’s post is Third Way Centrist bullshit.

This narrative began with a Forbes article about a recent Emerson poll with an incredibly small sample size saying that 26% of Bernie voters would vote for Trump over Elizabeth Warren (that same poll pegged Bernie as the leader for the Democratic nomination). Given that the MSNBC propaganda complex is devoted to the “all Bernie supporters are sexist” narrative, this took off like a rocketship. While there is no reason to doubt the basic findings, any analysis that does not note the incredibly small sample size underlying that percentage is devoted more to the narrative than the facts underlying the situation. Plus, there is a gigantic group of voters left out of this narrative.

If you dig into past Emerson polls* on all the candidates, the narrative around Bernie supporters being uniquely intransigent completely and utterly collapses.

*Here are Emerson’s March archives and April archives providing the data laid out below by this Twitter account.

In Massachusetts, same polling company, poll from 2 weeks ago.

50% of Klobuchar
21% of Beto
19% of Biden
15% of Buttigieg
12.5% of Booker
6% of Bernie <—*
2% of Warren

... supporters would vote for Trump over Warren.

Whoops, there goes the narrative.— wideofthepost (@wideofthepost) April 21, 2019

In Wisconsin, last month, same polling company.

15% of Klobuchar
9% of Warren
6% of Bernie <—*
5% of Beto
4% of Biden

... supporters would vote for Trump over Warren.
snood wrote:

Twenty-one percent of Sanders voters’ second choice would be Trump.


https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/4/22/sanders-supporters-would-vote-trump-over-buttigieg-warren-harris
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 07:27 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Turning Republicans into progressives is the best thing a progressive can do.
Oh yeah, for sure. And Carlson's audience are just exactly the sort of Republicans who, nimble of mind and open to fresh ideas, sit on the fence wondering who to vote for to give them the best opportunity of achieving populist policies.

Anyone want to wager on the prospect of Gabbard, within the next year, accepting a job offer at Fox?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 07:39 am
@blatham,
I have some skepticism as to the accuracy of that particular poll but I think it's fair to say that some of the Sanders support has always been from disaffected voters who would prefer to see the system crash than see anything deemed "centrist" or "moderate" succeed.

We used to have these arguments when I was a bomb-throwing anarcho-syndicalist in college. Serious discussions involved our potential support for an "Adolf Hitler" rather than any moderate Democrat, as unleashed fascist repression would drive the working class into the ranks of our alienated and disorganized band of youthful idealists.

Later on it struck me that political reform is more likely when most people feel that they are relatively secure. They are less threatened by the cumulative effect of small changes and adjustments, which, in turn provide politicians with a positive message as they can point to steady and responsible progress. Identifying and fixing problems with existing programs is also part of this process as I tried (and evidently failed) to point out in this post a while back.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 07:41 am
TrekkerTeach
@trekkerteach12
·
11h
My Obama disillusionment is exactly why I don't trust Warren.

Obama campaigned on a bunch of bold, progressive rhetoric w no bold, progressive record to back it up. He had neoliberal associations that should have been a red flag.

Just like Warren.

I'm not doing that again...
Quote Tweet

Abby Martin
@AbbyMartin
· 19h
This isn’t even about how Warren was a diehard republican for 50 years, this is about what she’s doing NOW to make backroom deals with superdelegates. Obama also said a bunch of radical things to win and did none of it, not sure why people have historical amnesia about that
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2019 08:05 am
@hightor,
Quote:
I think it's fair to say that some of the Sanders support has always been from disaffected voters who would prefer to see the system crash than see anything deemed "centrist" or "moderate" succeed.
I think so as well. There's a sort of angry, frustrated and petulant state of mind where "let's blow it all up and start again!" seems a good idea. Well, it's not so much a "good idea" as an irrational and emotional outburst. Unhappy in marriage? Shoot your partner. Then everything changes. Surely things can't get worse than they are now.

Both of us and others have written previously on the history of progressive advances (civil rights, women's rights, etc) as being marked by continuing activism and incremental sequences of change. But there is another sphere of evidence supporting this notion, that is, how Republicans reactionaries have managed, slowly and in a dedicated manner, over the last half century or so to gain the political power they now manifest. A fine instance of this is how the courts have been changed by the ongoing activities of the Federalist Society. Right now, Politico has a tremendous piece up on some of this history. It's Here
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.29 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 04:32:03