There's no radical left in America.

okie wrote:

No left wingers now, ha! That is laughable. There are avowed socialists in Congress right now. I think if Humphrey were alive today, you guys would throw him in the same pot as Lieberman and even Zell Miller. He would be a dinosaur in your world

okie wrote:

I just joined this forum but here we are again, people like yourself claiming Bush is a radical right winger. That is an absolutely incredible belief. I've been around to watch politics since the 50's, my friend, and Bush in the 50's would have been considered a liberal. One of your Democrat Party's candidates, Hubert Humphrey was considered a liberal then but now he would be a right winger based on what you are saying.

You are pretty funny okie. Your arguments contradict themselves. First you claim I would consider Humphrey a RWer then change it to a moderate but still haven't proposed anything to back up either claim.

Humphrey was a liberal that understood the art of compromise.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's a bell curve. You can't have one side without the other. The rest of it is just BS.

Nonsense. In certain eras in certain countries, (far) left or (far) right ideologies are significantly more pronounced than in others. So you can easily, at a particular point in time or in a particular country, have a pronounced far right and a near-absent far left or vice versa.

Only if you're talking about, say, world history of the past century, does your point start to make sense.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's a bell curve. You can't have one side without the other. The rest of it is just BS.

The rest of the world is your bell curve than with Hitler on the extreme far right and Vladimir Lenin on the extreme left. That makes American politics pretty mild in comparison. But still leaning mostly to the right and a lot in the center.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I was mainly thinking of Humphrey in terms of his social views, which would be labeled a right wing view in the liberal world of today. I gave you one of many examples with the abortion example that Humphrey would be a right winger today according to your standards. [..] there are even many aspects of his views on that, such as illegal immigration, voting by prisoners, which Hillary supports, and many other various and sundry government programs, I think Humphrey would have been against them.

There's an awful lack of detail in substantiation here for the specificity of the claim you make ...

You bring Humphrey's views on abortion, and grandstand how that's just "one of many" unspecified examples concerning his "social views" without bringing a single one; you bring an unchecked suspicion or two on what he might have opposed re: immigration and prisoner voting; and claim Humphrey would have opposed "various and sundry government programs" today's liberals defend without specifying a single one -- and claim to be making a case on the "many aspects of his views" that would make him a rightwinger today?

okie wrote:

I think if Humphrey were alive today, you guys would throw him in the same pot as Lieberman and even Zell Miller. He would be a dinosaur in your world.

That's exactly the case you have failed to make...

0 Replies

okie wrote:

No left wingers now, ha! That is laughable. There are avowed socialists in Congress right now.

Bernie Saunders (Ind-Vermont) is the only Congressman I know of who stood for election as a Socialist ...

Apart from him, at most, you could count the two Democratic Congressmen who, at least nominally, are members of the "Democratic Socialists of America", a group that intended to work within the Democratic Party to make it a social-democratic party (a doomed cause, obviously): Major Owens (from Brooklyn) and Danny Davis (from Chicago). No, I hadnt ever heard of them either. Both tout their membership of the Progressive Caucus on their website, but neither mentions their socialist 'credentials' anywhere, as far as I can find.

Actually, this epitomises the complete absence of a prolific Left in the US. The "Democratic Socialists of America", however radical the name may sound to your ears, is in fact the main US member of the Socialist International (SI): and the SI is the organisation that Tony Blair's Labour Party belongs to, that Schroeder's SPD belongs to, that the Spanish government party PSOE belongs to, that Lula's PDT which governs Brazil belongs to.

SI parties govern not just the UK, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, but also Argentine, Brazil, Chile, and South Africa. In Europe, Australia, Latin-America, Israel, this is not the far left, this is the mainstream, in turn criticized sharply by parties to its left.

But in the US, out of 435 Congressmen, just three dare to proclaim themselves part of the same political family.

Nuff said.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Nuff said.

Not quite.

The Progressive Cauacus, which as of 2001 claimed 58 members of the House of Reps, is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. While these Representatives may not openly call themselves "Socialists", the are certainly in cahoots with such.

The Democratic Socialists of America website no longer lists the politicians they are connected to, but I was able to find an archived list from 2001.

0 Replies

Instigate, I'm sorry but nimh has a much better argument. While I would admit there are a hand full of Socialists in Congress, 58 members is an outrageously high number to be believable don't you think?

Even if it were remotely possible that there were 58 members, you are providing a list that is 5 years old. We have a much different political climate in the U.S. now than we did before 9/11.

0 Replies

Your evidence that the progressive caucus is associated with the Democratic Socialists of America is what? An archived attack site? Because someone shares similar goals with another movement doesn't make them part of that movement. Interesting how your site doesn't provide entire quotes about supposedly how the DSA is working on a campaign with the progressive caucus. I wonder what is in the rest of the quote that is missing.

The only connection I can see is that Bernie Sanders gave a speech in 1999 to their convention. (Frome the DSA website.) That doesn't make Sanders a Democratic Socialist any more than Zell Miller's speech to the GOP convention makes him a Republican. (In spite of the attacks on Miller by some, he still claims to be a democrat.)

We have no way of knowing what the rest of the unfinished sentence is.

Quote:

"We invite you to support the campaign by adding your name to the list of signers of the Pledge for Economic Justice. In conjunction with the Campaign DSA is working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a network of more than 50 progressive members of the US House of Representatives...

Possible completions of the sentence that provide completely the opposite meaning.

... to try to get the progressive caucus to give up their seats for real Socialists.

... to get the caucus to work for justice instead of what they are now doing.

Until you can provide the ENTIRE sentence in context I don't trust this site or Newsmax or any other site that presently has the quote in its abbreviated form. The only thing this proves is that people are willing to attack progressives as being communist without any evidence.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
I think if Humphrey were alive today, you guys would throw him in the same pot as Lieberman and even Zell Miller. He would be a dinosaur in your world.

That's exactly the case you have failed to make...

Okay, lets talk about one issue for now to take one step at a time if you can't grasp it all. Humphrey was pro-life. Does that make him a right winger or a left winger in today's world? Please answer one or the other.

0 Replies

Tne United States has a two party system, and does not provide for proportional representation as do several of the Parliamentary systems in Europe. This inhibits the role and potential of extreme parties of any stripe, and forces the major parties here to try at lleast to appeal to the central tendencies of the electorate as a whole. The result is indeed a diminished role for radicals of the left or right, compared to that enjoyed by continental European loonies. I suppose we have as many radical views among our population as do any other modern country, but here their political voice is not artificially amplified by the legislative structure as it is in some European countries.

There are many ways to skin this cat, and I have no quarrel with the way others choose to govern themselves. However I am content with our system, which has stood up fairly well for over two centuries.

0 Replies

By the way, Zell Miller is an example of somebody that the Democratic Party has left. Go back a few years, Ronald Reagan was of course a Democrat originally. He said the Party left him, he did not leave the party. The Democrat Party has been turning increasingly left since the 50's. It is now being run by former Vietnam protestors and pot smokers and peaceniks from the 60's. Those people were pretty far left from the Democrat establishment at that time. The 60's protestors have put on coats and ties, but they are the same people and retain much of their old philosophy. All of this should be patently obvious if you've lived through the 50's, 60's, continuing up to now. I did.

0 Replies

I do believe okie, you are what you say you are. Medication might help.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
I think if Humphrey were alive today, you guys would throw him in the same pot as Lieberman and even Zell Miller. He would be a dinosaur in your world.

That's exactly the case you have failed to make...

Okay, lets talk about one issue for now to take one step at a time if you can't grasp it all. Humphrey was pro-life. Does that make him a right winger or a left winger in today's world? Please answer one or the other.

And the only thing we have is your statement. I can find nothing on his views in this area. Provide a source preferably with Humphrey's own words to support you claim.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The Democrat Party

Oh, that bugs me when people call it that. It's called "The Democratic Party", so please call it that. Now I know you get your information from Rush Limbaugh.

You don't see us calling your party "The Repub Party" do you? Have a little respect...

0 Replies

parados wrote:

And the only thing we have is your statement. I can find nothing on his views in this area. Provide a source preferably with Humphrey's own words to support you claim.

0 Replies

Okie- I think you may note that although you brought links to bear to buttress your assertions about Humphrey( which are on the mark) the scoffers do not provide evidence to rebut you. They only present their own unsourced opinions. Although you may encounter this phenomenon frequently, rest assured that positions held accompanied by evidence and documenation trump unsourced opinions unless those opinions come from a verified expert.

0 Replies

Re the term "Democrat Party": As riverroad has noted, it's really the "Democratic Party" (of course). Somehow, using the wrong name is supposed to make it sound insulting.

It's idiotic, but notice how consistent right wingers are in using the wrong word. I'd love to hear their explanation for not calling the party by its real name. That would be amusing...

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Re the term "Democrat Party": As riverroad has noted, it's really the "Democratic Party" (of course). Somehow, using the wrong name is supposed to make it sound insulting.

It's idiotic, but notice how consistent right wingers are in using the wrong word. I'd love to hear their explanation for not calling the party by its real name. That would be amusing...

As a point of fact here --- you are wrong. "Democratic" is an ajective. The proper name of the party is Democrat.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:
Re the term "Democrat Party": As riverroad has noted, it's really the "Democratic Party" (of course). Somehow, using the wrong name is supposed to make it sound insulting.

It's idiotic, but notice how consistent right wingers are in using the wrong word. I'd love to hear their explanation for not calling the party by its real name. That would be amusing...

As a point of fact here --- you are wrong. "Democratic" is an ajective. The proper name of the party is Democrat.

As a point of fact, "party" is a noun. An adjective modifies a noun. "Democrat" is another noun. Nouns don't modify nouns.

But thanks for clarifying the "thinking" that's behind the "Democrat Party" stupidity...

0 Replies

Proper names are NOUNS.

0 Replies

There's no radical left in America.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know