For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

Not surprising how hypocritical the Democrats are (FTR I hate them and Republicans equally)...

When McCain ran we heard so many times about him being too old for office. Interesting Hillary is only 2-3 years younger.

I ####### hate political parties, they're terrible for 'Murica as a whole.

 

[NCCommish]

Not surprising how hypocritical the Democrats are (FTR I hate them and Republicans equally)...

When McCain ran we heard so many times about him being too old for office. Interesting Hillary is only 2-3 years younger.

I ####### hate political parties, they're terrible for 'Murica as a whole.

Hillary's age came up last time and will again.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Not surprising how hypocritical the Democrats are (FTR I hate them and Republicans equally)...

When McCain ran we heard so many times about him being too old for office. Interesting Hillary is only 2-3 years younger.

I ####### hate political parties, they're terrible for 'Murica as a whole.

Hillary's age came up last time and will again.

Yet she'll get the nomination and will absolutely be representing the hypocrites who blasted McCain.

HFS I hate these people. It works both ways, I'm sure the ####### Republicans would do the same.

 

[rockaction]

Dear God, I read the NYT/Chipotle piece again, and I wasn't wrong. It's a little bit of humor, but it's an everyday-guy-on-the-street vibe from the NYT. As Cher from Clueless would say, "As if."

The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

 

[Scoresman]

As long as she chooses someone with an IQ higher than a table lamp for VP, age isnt a huge factor. McCain wasnt able to do this.

 

[NCCommish]

Not surprising how hypocritical the Democrats are (FTR I hate them and Republicans equally)...

When McCain ran we heard so many times about him being too old for office. Interesting Hillary is only 2-3 years younger.

I ####### hate political parties, they're terrible for 'Murica as a whole.

Hillary's age came up last time and will again.

Yet she'll get the nomination and will absolutely be representing the hypocrites who blasted McCain.

HFS I hate these people. It works both ways, I'm sure the ####### Republicans would do the same.

If it were up to me she wouldn't run at all much less get the nomination.

 

[tommyboy]

The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

honestly, we could start a thread of all the frivolous puff piece journalism that will come out about Hillary over the next 16 months, but it would probably break the FBS server hamsters

 

[squistion]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not surprising how hypocritical the Democrats are (FTR I hate them and Republicans equally)...

When McCain ran we heard so many times about him being too old for office. Interesting Hillary is only 2-3 years younger.

I ####### hate political parties, they're terrible for 'Murica as a whole.

Hillary's age came up last time and will again.

Yet she'll get the nomination and will absolutely be representing the hypocrites who blasted McCain.

HFS I hate these people. It works both ways, I'm sure the ####### Republicans would do the same.

This is all true, but in fairness, the overwhelming majority of people in both parties are complete hypocrites when it comes to this sort of thing. Yes, Hillary will get defended by the same people who criticized McCain, but it's also a little awkward for the party of Reagan to play this card with a straight face.

For the record, Hillary's age barely even registers on my list of reasons why I hate her.

 

[rockaction]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

The other side would love for you to use "progressive" more than "liberal," because then we can stuff the 1910's and 1920's up your ###. Progressives would then be stuck with the racism of Woodrow WIlson, eugenics, bad science acting as settled, and dabbling with fascist and corporatist arrangements -- all that stuff.

I'd be careful what I wished for.

 

[NCCommish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

I will not let the GOP define me or what I am. Progressive is am absolutely loaded word if you look at the history.

 

[The Commish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

Take it FWIW, but when I hear "progressive" I think "can't go all in with real liberals but wants to be part of the 'cool' team". Even though the word is absolutely loaded historically....that's what I think when I hear it today. Sorta like those who mock belief in a God, but can't pull the trigger and reject the possibility outright wanting to still be called atheist.

ETA: And, no, I don't think you should give two ####s what I think about the term.

 

[squistion]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

The other side would love for you to use "progressive" more than "liberal," because then we can stuff the 1910's and 1920's up your ###. Progressives would then be stuck with the racism of Woodrow WIlson, eugenics, bad science acting as settled, and dabbling with fascist and corporatist arrangements -- all that stuff.

I'd be careful what I wished for.

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

More or less, yeah. I hope we at least get a decent group of alternative candidates to consider, unfortunately the Democrat's bench is thin right now. I think we are likely to get something like Biden, Jerry Brown, and Jim Webb as the primary challengers.

 

[shadrap]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

I would get out the vote for Warren. I won't do **** for Hillary but then I'm a liberal not a progressive.

Appreciate your straightforwardness. Very few liberals will admit they are liberal, thus the progressive label, IMO.

 

[rockaction]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

The other side would love for you to use "progressive" more than "liberal," because then we can stuff the 1910's and 1920's up your ###. Progressives would then be stuck with the racism of Woodrow WIlson, eugenics, bad science acting as settled, and dabbling with fascist and corporatist arrangements -- all that stuff.

I'd be careful what I wished for.

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

Uh, the NYT piece is a real news bit w/ a little humor, but not much. It turns into a dietary/celeb thing. Also, I'd just urge caution linking yourself to a distinct historical movement, especially when the policy implications and means are all very similar to today's debates. And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

 

[NCCommish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

I would get out the vote for Warren. I won't do **** for Hillary but then I'm a liberal not a progressive.

Appreciate your straightforwardness. Very few liberals will admit they are liberal, thus the progressive label, IMO.

I'm taking the word back.

 

[squistion]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

I will not let the GOP define me or what I am. Progressive is am absolutely loaded word if you look at the history.

Indeed that association with Teddy Roosevelt (who ran for President in 1912 on the Progressive Party Ticket) will probably be the killer.

Progressive doesn't carry the baggage you think it does, or we wouldn't be using it, would we. If you want to act like that is has all these current negative associations, fine go ahead, we will just laugh at you and keep calling ourselves that.

 

[timschochet]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Liberal and Progressive are interchangeable in the modern context.

ETA: for the record I almost always use liberal to describe my liberal policy views, rather than progressive. I don't care what anyone else uses.

 

[rockaction]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

Uh, yeah, I'm just going to start calling myself a fascist and see if anybody notices.

Also, Talib Kweli wants a, um, "word" with you. https://medium.com/cuepoint/#####-please-93b5d29a615

 

[squistion]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary will likely face a conservative controlled Congress same as Obama. The Senate might turn Dem but the House won't. So don't expect a lot of big changes if she is elected. She'll claim she can work with Republicans but that's not up to her. Therefore, the reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton are:

1. Status quote on Obamacare and our current tax system and Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans threaten to repeal Obamacare and make radical changes to the rest of it. If you're against these conservative changes you should vote for Hillary.

2. Continuation of Obama's general foreign policy. Most Republicans will be more interventionalist. Rand Paul will be less so. If you don't prefer either of those alternatives, vote Hillary.

3. Supreme Court nominees. More than any other issue, this represents the most significant and lasting difference between the two parties. Hillary will nominate liberals; the Republican will nominate conservatives.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not surprising how hypocritical the Democrats are (FTR I hate them and Republicans equally)...

When McCain ran we heard so many times about him being too old for office. Interesting Hillary is only 2-3 years younger.

I ####### hate political parties, they're terrible for 'Murica as a whole.

Hillary's age came up last time and will again.

Yet she'll get the nomination and will absolutely be representing the hypocrites who blasted McCain.

HFS I hate these people. It works both ways, I'm sure the ####### Republicans would do the same.

Hillary has a longer life expectancy than McCain because (a) she's a woman, and (b) she didn't spend five years as a captive in North Vietnam, which can't be good for anyone's health. Also, she probably won't tag Sarah Palin as her running mate.

 

[timschochet]

BTW McCain plans to run for the Senate again.

 

[mcintyre1]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

 

[mcintyre1]

By the way, I'm a "progressive" democrat that hates Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election. I think she is the epitome of the status quo of elite control in this country and I'm disgusted that she's adopting the rhetoric of real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or my own local Keith Ellison to try to ride public perception to an easy victory. I really hope Bernie runs and gets a chance to shred her in a debate for what she really is.

 

[squistion]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

 

[rockaction]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly.

They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

 

[mcintyre1]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly.

They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

Yeah, alright. Completely ignore historical context. Do I get to bring up conservative's historical defense of racism now?

 

[squistion]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly. They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

Which nobody really cares about today, which is why most people on the left view the terms liberal/progressive as being interchangeable, with progressive emerging as the preferred term.

 

[rockaction]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly.

They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

Yeah, alright. Completely ignore historical context. Do I get to bring up conservative's historical defense of racism now?

Robert Byrd was serving in the past decade. Democrat - KKK

 

[timschochet]

By the way, I'm a "progressive" democrat that hates Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election. I think she is the epitome of the status quo of elite control in this country and I'm disgusted that she's adopting the rhetoric of real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or my own local Keith Ellison to try to ride public perception to an easy victory. I really hope Bernie runs and gets a chance to shred her in a debate for what she really is.

mcintyre, I'd like you (and anyone else who feels the same way, like NC Commish) to refer to my post above #774. Given the political dysfunction between the two parties, it doesn't matter whether or not Hillary is "status quo" or a true progressive like Bernie Sanders. Let's say in a fantasy world Bernie Sanders is actually elected President. With a House of Representatives controlled by conservative Republicans, what would he be able to do?

1. Keep them from repealing Obamacare.

2. Keep them from changing the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare in a conservative manner.

3. Maintain Obama's foreign policy.

4. Nominate liberal Supreme Court Justices.

And that's it. Bernie could not move this nation in a progressive direction no matter how much he might want to. All of his proposals for economic justice, banking restrictions, etc., would be shot down the moment he proposed them. And everything that I just described above is exactly what Hillary will do as well. No difference between them at all. They might think differently, have very different motives, but their Presidencies would be largely the same.

 

[tommyboy]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.

I see no difference in the labels, they both mean the same thing. NCC is rather pedantic about this supposed difference, but most people I know don't make a distinction and use them interchangeably. Progressive is becoming the preferred term, because liberal has become loaded with meaning from the other side and for years has been used as a pejorative, usually lumped with communist.

The other side would love for you to use "progressive" more than "liberal," because then we can stuff the 1910's and 1920's up your ###. Progressives would then be stuck with the racism of Woodrow WIlson, eugenics, bad science acting as settled, and dabbling with fascist and corporatist arrangements -- all that stuff.

I'd be careful what I wished for.

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

The nyt piece wasnt humor

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To me liberal classically defines individual rights and aside from the stigma of the past - which by the way Clinton's helped formulate in the 90s - I think that's one reason why progs themselves prefer the distinction. So for instance rights of access for all gays predominate over the 1st Amendment rights of business owners speak out against those rights. Not arguing the right or wrong if that but that's the prioritization, it's progress and social rights over individual rights.

 

[tommyboy]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly. They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

Yeah, alright. Completely ignore historical context. Do I get to bring up conservative's historical defense of racism now?

Yeah, no. The Republican party abolished slavery and passed the civil rights act

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yeah, alright. Completely ignore historical context. Do I get to bring up conservative's historical defense of racism now?

Yeah, no. The Republican party abolished slavery and passed the civil rights act

He didn't say Republican. He said conservative.

The Republican party used to have both liberals and conservatives in it. It was the liberals in the Republican party that did the things you mentioned, while the conservatives opposed those things.

 

[timschochet]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly. They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

Yeah, alright. Completely ignore historical context. Do I get to bring up conservative's historical defense of racism now?

Yeah, no. The Republican party abolished slavery and passed the civil rights act

It was a Democratic bill, sponsored by two Democratic Presidents. It was opposed largely by Southern Democrats, who became Republican almost immediately afterward largely because the bill had been sponsored by Democrats. It was also opposed by the Republican Presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater.

 

[Jackstraw]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

I would get out the vote for Warren. I won't do **** for Hillary but then I'm a liberal not a progressive.

Appreciate your straightforwardness. Very few liberals will admit they are liberal, thus the progressive label, IMO.

Most liberals aren't ashamed in any way about liberal policies. But the right has made liberal the political equivalent of the N word for a couple of decades. Yes I'm looking at you Karl Rove.

 

[skol asylum]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly. They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

Yeah, alright. Completely ignore historical context. Do I get to bring up conservative's historical defense of racism now?

Yeah, no. The Republican party abolished slavery and passed the civil rights act

I wish the Republicans were still the party of Lincoln. And LBJ, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act a bill introduced by a Democrat in Congress controlled by Democrats in both houses, though the Republicans also strongly voted for it.Probably more the party of Lincoln than the current Grand Old Party of Old White Guys:

http://www.modernwhig.org/

 

[squistion]

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

The nyt piece wasnt humor

Yes, I am sure they were completely serious when they said:

"Did she include cheese and sour cream? This information, much like the contents of some of her emails when she was secretary of state, we may never know."

And closing with this line:

"You may resume your lives."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A higher percentage of GOP voted for the 64 CRA than Demos and we all kno Ike would have introduced it just as well as LBJ because Ike was the first to integrate schools. LBJ voted against TWO civil rights bills while in the Senate. It's a wash

 

[squistion]

Appreciate your straightforwardness. Very few liberals will admit they are liberal, thus the progressive label, IMO.

Most liberals aren't ashamed in any way about liberal policies. But the right has made liberal the political equivalent of the N word for a couple of decades. Yes I'm looking at you Karl Rove.

Agreed, some very good points and you explain it much better than I did.

 

[timschochet]

A higher percentage of GOP voted for the 64 CRA than Demos and we all know Ike would have introduced it just as well as LBJ because Ike was the first to integrate schools. LBJ voted against TWO civil rights bills while in the Senate. It's a wash

No I'm afraid you're wrong about almost all of this. Ike integrated schools because he was ordered to by the Warren court. He didn't want to do it, and in fact he resisted doing it for 3 years after the Brown ruling until his attorney general told him he had to. Ike was no racist, but he was a conservative who believed that trying to force change would cause no end of trouble.

As far as the "higher percentage of GOP", that's true, but only because the Southern Democrats were all opposed, and nowadays there aren't any Southern Democrats- they switched over in 1968 and they've been Republicans ever since. They ALWAYS were conservative. LBJ was one of them (hence his earlier votes) but actually became more liberal after he became Vice President. (Though he remained a foreign policy hawk.)

It's not a wash. The modern Republican party doesn't get any credit for the modern Civil Rights movement. The political heroes of that movement are MLK, the Kennedy brothers (Jack and Robert), and LBJ. Just as with gay rights, the feminist movement, and Latino issues, the modern day GOP has consistently been on the wrong side of history.

 

[TPW]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

You are aware that was meant as humorous piece not to be taken seriously? It was in the section entitled "Less essential analysis" The below should have been a tip:

Heres what The Upshot can contribute: Is Mrs. Clintons order like the normal Chipotle meals of everyday Americans, or is it polarizing?

Republicans don't do humor.

1. I'm not a Republican.

2. Humor or not the article represents the deepest extent of examination that any Democrat candidate is going to receive from the New York Times. Solidarity from one Gray Lady to another.

 

[NCCommish]

By the way, I'm a "progressive" democrat that hates Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election. I think she is the epitome of the status quo of elite control in this country and I'm disgusted that she's adopting the rhetoric of real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or my own local Keith Ellison to try to ride public perception to an easy victory. I really hope Bernie runs and gets a chance to shred her in a debate for what she really is.

mcintyre, I'd like you (and anyone else who feels the same way, like NC Commish) to refer to my post above #774. Given the political dysfunction between the two parties, it doesn't matter whether or not Hillary is "status quo" or a true progressive like Bernie Sanders. Let's say in a fantasy world Bernie Sanders is actually elected President. With a House of Representatives controlled by conservative Republicans, what would he be able to do?1. Keep them from repealing Obamacare.

2. Keep them from changing the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare in a conservative manner.

3. Maintain Obama's foreign policy.

4. Nominate liberal Supreme Court Justices.

And that's it. Bernie could not move this nation in a progressive direction no matter how much he might want to. All of his proposals for economic justice, banking restrictions, etc., would be shot down the moment he proposed them. And everything that I just described above is exactly what Hillary will do as well. No difference between them at all. They might think differently, have very different motives, but their Presidencies would be largely the same.

If you think a Sanders presidency and a Clinton presidency would be the same you haven't been paying much attention. Hillary will never even have the conversation Sanders would. And we need to have the conversation.

 

[timschochet]

By the way, I'm a "progressive" democrat that hates Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election. I think she is the epitome of the status quo of elite control in this country and I'm disgusted that she's adopting the rhetoric of real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or my own local Keith Ellison to try to ride public perception to an easy victory. I really hope Bernie runs and gets a chance to shred her in a debate for what she really is.

mcintyre, I'd like you (and anyone else who feels the same way, like NC Commish) to refer to my post above #774. Given the political dysfunction between the two parties, it doesn't matter whether or not Hillary is "status quo" or a true progressive like Bernie Sanders. Let's say in a fantasy world Bernie Sanders is actually elected President. With a House of Representatives controlled by conservative Republicans, what would he be able to do?1. Keep them from repealing Obamacare.

2. Keep them from changing the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare in a conservative manner.

3. Maintain Obama's foreign policy.

4. Nominate liberal Supreme Court Justices.

And that's it. Bernie could not move this nation in a progressive direction no matter how much he might want to. All of his proposals for economic justice, banking restrictions, etc., would be shot down the moment he proposed them. And everything that I just described above is exactly what Hillary will do as well. No difference between them at all. They might think differently, have very different motives, but their Presidencies would be largely the same.

If you think a Sanders presidency and a Clinton presidency would be the same you haven't been paying much attention. Hillary will never even have the conversation Sanders would. And we need to have the conversation.

Yes Sanders would say certain things that Hillary will not (although early in this campaign Hillary is sounding pretty populist.) But in terms of actually DOING anything, neither one would be able to do anything other than hold the line.

 

[The Commish]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

Not sure this is the right question at all. The question should be, "why are you insisting on changing the meaning of a word when there are other words that already mean that?"

 

[squistion]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

Not sure this is the right question at all. The question should be, "why are you insisting on changing the meaning of a word when there are other words that already mean that?"

The meaning of words can change over time, that is a fact. Remember when "gay" meant happy? I suppose you would have said 40 years ago, "why do they insist on calling themselves gay instead of homosexual, when homosexual already means that?"

People do have the right to label themselves and do not have to accept labels imposed by others.

Most of us progressives view the term progressive as deriving from the word progress, not from some long ago political movement. And despite what Tim suggests, progressives of 100 years ago (like Teddy Roosevelt) were hardly acting like Fascists, Communists or the KKK. But even if that were true, that is not the common association the average person has with the word progressive, and if it did it would never have been adopted as an alternative to liberal. For an analogy, remember how quickly the Tea Party discarded the term Tea Bagger (which they first called themselves) when they found out what the slang term means.

 

[timschochet]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

Not sure this is the right question at all. The question should be, "why are you insisting on changing the meaning of a word when there are other words that already mean that?"

The meaning of words can change over time, that is a fact. Remember when "gay" meant happy? I suppose you would have said 40 years ago, "why do they insist on calling themselves gay instead of homosexual, when homosexual already means that?"

People do have the right to label themselves and do not have to accept labels imposed by others.

Most of us progressives view the term progressive as deriving from the word progress, not from some long ago political movement. And despite what Tim suggests, progressives of 100 years ago (like Teddy Roosevelt) were hardly acting like Fascists, Communists or the KKK. But even if that were true, that is not the common association the average person has with the word progressive, and if it did it would never have been adopted as an alternative to liberal. For an analogy, remember how quickly the Tea Party discarded the term Tea Bagger (which they first called themselves) when they found out what the slang term means.

I didn't suggest that at all.