Progressives (Liberals)

Once again we have heard from moe, curly, and Larry. The three blind mice.

Once again you have added 0 to the conversation. You are beating yourself up with posts like that.

Losers trying to tell progressives what we should do

James Carville and Claire McCaskill whining

https://youtu.be/U6Z-Jehxe7g

I believe Carville & McCaskill are mostly motivated by real concerns that, despite his enthusiastic and loyal supporters , Sanders is very unlikely to be able to win a general election. However, I suspect we agree that they have themselves certainly failed to come up with a better or more electable alternative. Biden was knowingly a very weak candidate long before they orchestrated his resurrection, and I believe that Bloomberg will, for different reasons, also prove to be a weak or weakened candidate if he is selected by a then fractured Democrat party.

Sanders is a life-long socialist enthusiast who, I believe, ardently believes in the long term benefits of the socialist programs he recommends. I suspect that is why his rhetoric is so short on just how he would go about enacting (or paying for) them. One result is that he comes across with an authenticity and commitment that none of his current opponents (Sen. Warren, in particular) can match.

The problem, of course is that the history of the past century amply confirms that such programs are seriously enervating to the societies and economies that adopt them. This is widely understood by a majority of our voters, and, as a result, the likelihood of the election of a President advocating them, or, if elected, actually enacting them is negligibly small.

Monday morning quarterbacks always do!
She might have made a mistake if she had waited longer...you just never know. The conduct was egregious enough to expect some Republican cooperation. At the beginning, prominent Republican lawmakers reacted with genuine concern — until the alternative narrative was released and the godfather demanded loyalty — or else. The mistake was overestimating the civic responsibility and ethical principles of even a small number of sitting Republicans now that Trump has taken over the GOP.

She and her managers are fresh out of both. That they expect it from others is their arrogance, authoritarianism and desperation on display.

It is precisely out ok a sense of civic responsibility and ethical principles that they brought impeachment forward. Trump has no sense of civic responsibility and as the testimony proved overwhelmingly no ethical principles. His oonly guideline is his own self interest and the GOP shamelessly kissed his ass on both counts. Vote him out, lock him up.

The thirty or so other first world countries, all of which have some version of what conservastives love to call socialized medicine, i.e. "socialism" ALL offer coverage for everyone, better public health outcomes than we do, and cost around half per person than the US pays. It can be done. It is being done.Do what they do..

No it wasn't, only a total fool would believe that, next.

Only an idiot would call someone much more intelligent than thay a total fool.

If that really is so, voters elsewhere try not only to keep but to enlarge such programs., e.g. Finland is to give dads same paid parental leave as mums, seven months. (In Germany, only mothers or fathers can apply for parental leave, until the child is three.)

Only a total rabid right wing zealot would disbelieve it.

But we'll still have to pay taxes, right? Modern monetary theory doesn't rely on taxes as revenue but as a way of controlling demand and endorsing particular public policies through subsidization and penalization. Taxation intended to relieve income inequality will be a huge disruption and would no doubt spark a reaction at the polls. Any major change to the economic system will generate a response from those who feel they are being unfairly affected — how does Sanders avoid being Tea Partied in the next election cycle?

Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
Feb 8
‘Voters rejected potential Trump WWE opponents like the “progressive prosecutor” (Harris), the “pragmatic progressive” (Delaney), “the next Bobby Kennedy” (Beto), “Courageous Empathy” (Booker), Medicare for All can bite me (Hickenlooper)...’

I'm not sure just what is your meaning here. However we have seen from the former Soviet Union & GDR, to Mao's China, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela the enervating social and economic effects of socialism.

What is practiced in Europe is not socialism, but rather a form of substantial state controlled social welfare policies. They're fine for those who like and can accept the restrictions on individual freedom and choice that attend them. They too come with their knock-on social and economic effects. It would be difficult now to describe the economies of most European nations as thriving. Populations across the continent are declining, and the various nations (if they still exist) are having a hard time assimilating immigrants.

Sanders wouldn't be able to avoid getting Tea Partied in the midterms. Any major changes will assuredly generate a midterm backlash no matter who is president. Sanders would have to make all of his big legislative changes in his first two years in office, or not make them at all.

Hardly. It was about progressives hating people who don't agree with them, and nothing more.

You are the only person here who engages in such behavior. Are you confessing to idiocy then?

Not if the goal was to shed light on the inner workings of the Trump Administration.

Perhaps.

I personally think Pelosi came to the impeachment reluctantly and wanted to make it as simple and as fast as possible. Not that she didn't believe Trump deserved to impeached, she more than 100% likely believed he definitely did. However, she has always been more about what we can get done and getting democrats in control of the House and across the board. She more than likely reasoned, he is not going to get removed, it is a distraction at a time when we need to concentrate on the election and all that kind of thought. On the other hand, she might have thought, if they don't impeach, when he so blatantly did something clearly impeachable, it would be worse politically for them. They would have looked no better than Republicans in the eyes of those they need to convince to vote for them. So in my opinion, she rushed through it. She might be right politically, I don't know.

Or am I full of hogwash on my thinking?