Nina Turner and the anti-Democrat left

[masterfins]

Of course if you give everyone what they want, you'll lose a large group of voters.  But the same is true of giving progressives nothing that they want.

I self-label as a progressive and I completely disagree with your assessment of how my mind works.  I don't want handouts.  But I do believe that there is value in the collective and that you can't get rich alone.  All this "I got here with hard work" is bullshit.  It's partially true, but you worked hard within a system where lots of other people worked hard and didn't get to share in those riches.

I am for Universal Health Care, Schools, etc.  Things that benefit everyone -- broadband, travel systems, etc -- it's beneficial to society as a whole to have those things run by the collective.  It's not a handout.

I don't think your worth of health care when you're sick comes down to how much money you make.  Your ability to get treatment should be the same if you're a janitor or a board executive or an old person or an infant.

But I don't consider myself extreme at all or for any of that to be an extreme position.

You may self label as a progressive, but I don't think you espouse the same wants/temperament of the Progressive Congresspeople.  I'm for all the things you mention above (with maybe the exception of Universal Health Care-I know we need a better system, but don't think Universal is the right method); and the two current bills that have passed the Senate $1 Trillion for infrastructure, and $3.5 Trillion for Social issues addresses most of these issues.  These are huge spending bills, one was past bi-partisanly by the Senate.  However, the Progressives won't let either bill go forward because they want more.  Now moderate Democrats are threatening the Progressives to let the infrastructure bill go forward or else.  The infighting amongst Democrats gives the Republicans the opportunity to back away from the table and tell the public "look we went along with the President, it's the Democrats that can't pass a bill when they have control of both Houses of Congress and the Oval Office.  This can backfire into lost Democratic seats at the next election.

[masterfins]

LMFAO, you never cease to amaze me with the ridiculous shit you say.

+1

[masterfins]

I may be old and grumpy, but I can say, with no reservation, that the far right in this country is about as close to true fascism as I would've ever guessed a political party in a democratic country could go.

Now...get the fuck off my lawn.

I agree, the Far Right is filled with terrible people.

[Sunstroke]

The infighting amongst Democrats gives the Republicans the opportunity to back away from the table and tell the public "look we went along with the President, it's the Democrats that can't pass a bill when they have control of both Houses of Congress and the Oval Office.  This can backfire into lost Democratic seats at the next election.

That seems a little simplistic, kind of like saying "that lake isn't deep enough to launch a boat...it's only ankle deep on the ducks."

I have to ask though... Are you a big supporter of the Trump method of ensuring party unity? "Agree with everything I say or I will end your political career."

[Dolphster]

It didn't take you guys long to get off of the left vs left thing to start bashing republicans again.

That was inevitable.  But the left vs. left thing was entertaining for a little while anyway. 

[Fau Teixeira]

I know what fascism is.  Here are the 14 characteristics

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

[Spider-Dan]

You may self label as a progressive, but I don't think you espouse the same wants/temperament of the Progressive Congresspeople.  I'm for all the things you mention above (with maybe the exception of Universal Health Care-I know we need a better system, but don't think Universal is the right method); and the two current bills that have passed the Senate $1 Trillion for infrastructure, and $3.5 Trillion for Social issues addresses most of these issues.  These are huge spending bills, one was past bi-partisanly by the Senate.  However, the Progressives won't let either bill go forward because they want more.

This is not accurate.  The $3.5T reconciliation bill has NOT yet passed the Senate, and House progressives (and notably: Pelosi herself) are saying that they will not vote for the bipartisan bill until the reconciliation bill has been passed by the Senate.  Progressives WANT the $3.5T bill to be passed by the Senate before the House moves forward, but you're saying they're against it.

[Spider-Dan]

It didn't take you guys long to get off of the left vs left thing to start bashing republicans again.

Speaking only for myself, I am pointing out how terrible Republicans are in order to challenge the claim made by others on the left that "Democrats and Republicans are the same except for cultural issues."

That is extremely far from the truth.  Republicans are dramatically worse than Democrats on virtually every issue, and attempts from the anti-Democrat left (like, say, Nina Turner) to downplay that difference are delusional.  But they need that narrative to try to push third-parties.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Speaking only for myself, I am pointing out how terrible Republicans are in order to challenge the claim made by others on the left that "Democrats and Republicans are the same except for cultural issues."

That is extremely far from the truth.  Republicans are dramatically worse than Democrats on virtually every issue, and attempts from the anti-Democrat left (like, say, Nina Turner) to downplay that difference are delusional.  But they need that narrative to try to push third-parties.

In 2000, Nader was correct in saying there barely was much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.  And a Hillary Clinton administration would not have been meaningfully different from a Jeb Bush one — both would have been a center-right government.  A McCain administration would have been marginally different than an Obama one.

However, today there is a huge difference between Democrats and the party beholden to Trumpism.  But the democrats are still a center right party that barely throws a bone to progressives while protecting the billionaire class.

[Spider-Dan]

In 2000, Nader was correct in saying there barely was much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

So either you believe that Al Gore would also have invaded Iraq, or you believe that the invasion of Iraq was not a significant event.
This is before we address other policies like "total rejection of climate change," "massive tax cuts for the wealthy," or "authorization of torture"... on all of which you and Ralph Nader propose the Gore Administration would have acted identically to the Dubya Adminstration.

Completely unhinged delusion.

And a Hillary Clinton administration would not have been meaningfully different from a Jeb Bush one — both would have been a center-right government.

Again: if you're going to cite Jeb Bush, why not compare a Hillary Clinton Administration to a Colin Powell Administration or a Bill Weld Administration?  If we're going to install some completely unrealistic fantasy as the Republican nominee, no point in doing half-measures.

BTW, does this fantasy cut both ways?  That is to say, do I get to compare the Jeb Bush Administration to the Elizabeth Warren Administration?  I have a pretty good imagination, too.

A McCain administration would have been marginally different than an Obama one.

Only if you believe that a McCain Administration would have implemented the very same policies that he fought against as a Senator during the Obama Administration.  (And, um, that McCain would have nominated Sotomayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court.)

This is the equivalent of believing that President Bernie Sanders would have also enacted the Trump tax cuts and nominated Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett.  Absolutely ridiculous nonsense.

[Dave Gray]

The infighting amongst Democrats gives the Republicans the opportunity to back away from the table and tell the public "look we went along with the President, it's the Democrats that can't pass a bill when they have control of both Houses of Congress and the Oval Office.  This can backfire into lost Democratic seats at the next election.

I think you're not seeing the big picture.  This is just political circle-jerking so that both moderate Republicans and Democrats can be seen as breaking rank and win their purple districts.

The dems (all of them) want more than the GOP (all of them) is willing to give.

A few Democrats, mainly Manchin and Sinema (and Biden, to a lesser extent) want to get SOMETHING passed in a bipartisan matter, so that they can run on working with the other side.  Biden also campaigned on it.  They're taking all of the really easy stuff and passing it in the $1 trillion bill.  But the bill isn't really paid for with taxes on the wealthy, doesn't include a lot of stuff that the Dems want (this doesn't matter, as it's all about passing a bipartisan bill of anything).  This is good for a lot of the GOP also, because they can go back home and campaign on not being an obstructionist and getting something done, while also claiming to fight against the Dems big bill.

The Dems want more and they don't need republicans to get it, so they're just going to do the rest in a 50 vote reconciliation bill, which will absolutely receive 0 votes for Republicans.  Even if a Republican were to like the reconciliation bill, there's no need to vote for it politically, because they don't have to.

There is "infighting"...if you want to call it that, because you have Manchin and Bernie in the same party and every member has exactly the same amount of power because a single NO vote sinks the whole thing.  The 3.5 trillion is a starting point DESIGNED to become smaller.  This way, Manchin can say that he wants less money, Bernie can concede and they can pass a 2.5 trillion bill which was probably the plan all along.

Since Pelosi is in charge, she needs the liberal wing to vote for the traditional bill and she needs the moderates to vote for the reconciliation bill, the only play is to hold up one until they are both agreed to.  Else, someone can get their traditional bill and then walk away from the table.  It's really the only political play.

Granted, this whole thing could blow up, but it would be bad for both wings of the Democratic party, because nothing is worse than failing.  Passing bills hurts you politically, believe it or not.  ...your opponents will bash you.  But failing to pass bills is even worse.

Regardless of what happens, Dems are going to lose seats.  It's just the natural swing, not to mention the new census info.  So, the only time to pass this is now.  I have faith that they'll get it done.  It would be pure stubbornness if they can't make it work and they would pay a huge political price for it.

[Sunstroke]

Watching the draft-dodger kissing the flag that he doesn't give two shits about is enough to make me sick...

[Dolphster]

Watching the draft-dodger kissing the flag that he doesn't give two shits about is enough to make me sick...

The one good thing that I took from him doing that was that it made it very clear and obvious what a complete phoney he was.  Probably a large percentage of presidents were just as fake in their various displays, but they were at least smart enough not to be so obvious about it.  Although the single digit IQ crowd were probably eating it up....."That is a Amurica lovin' Lord Lovin' fine amurican right there."   Dude is probably about as religious as me.  And I'm an atheist!   

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The one good thing that I took from him doing that was that it made it very clear and obvious what a complete phoney he was.  Probably a large percentage of presidents were just as fake in their various displays, but they were at least smart enough not to be so obvious about it.  Although the single digit IQ crowd were probably eating it up....."That is a Amurica lovin' Lord Lovin' fine amurican right there."   Dude is probably about as religious as me.  And I'm an atheist!   

I am not so cynical.  I am not a fan of President Bush, but I have never doubted the tributes he made to veterans was anything but genuine. 

[Dolphster]

I am not so cynical.  I am not a fan of President Bush, but I have never doubted the tributes he made to veterans was anything but genuine. 

Oh, I completely agree with you about Bush.  I questioned many of the things he did, but I have every faith that his love of veterans is very genuine.  I was referring specifically  to the picture of Trump hugging the flag.  I do stick to my comment of "Probably a large percentage of presidents were just as fake in their various displays" but I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying that any presidents were 100% fake in everything they took publicity photos about.