The Super Progressives — Very liberal on economic and identity/cultural issues, anti-establishment... Prominent examples: Ocasio-Cortez , Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin.... People in this bloc generally see the Democratic Party as too centrist and too cautious...
The Very Progressives — Very liberal on economic issues, fairly liberal on identity issues, skeptical of the Democratic establishment. Prominent examples: Bill de Blasio, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.... a little less aggressive and less focused on identity issues and a little more willing to play nice with the Democratic Party establishment....
The Progressive New Guard — Liberal on both economic and identity issues but also somewhat concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence after Barack Obama was elected president. Prominent examples: Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Beto O’Rourke.... But what makes this group distinct from the next bloc of Democrats is a kind of performative wokeness, both on racial and nonracial issues.... The Progressive New Guard wants to appeal to white, working-class swing voters, but it sees another path to Democrats winning in purple states: mobilizing nonwhite voters and white millennials....
The Progressive Old Guard — Solidly center-left on both economic and identity issues, but very concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence before Obama was elected president. Prominent examples: Joe Biden, Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.... The old guard is less willing to placate the party’s most progressive wings. The defining phrase of this group might be “how do you pay for that?”...
The Moderates — More conservative and business-friendly than other Democrats on economic policies; somewhat liberal on cultural issues; anti-establishment. Prominent examples: Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.... Many of them represent competitive (purple) districts and states... [They] have a political incentive to play up their differences with Pelosi and particularly Ocasio-Cortez — to tell their constituents essentially, “I’m a Democrat, but not that kind of Democrat.”
Conservative Democrats — Skeptical of liberal views on both economic and cultural issues, often supportive of abortion limits, generally from conservative-leaning areas. Prominent examples: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.... Democrats may need more Democrats in this mold to win any of the three governor races in 2019 (Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi) or to gain seats in state legislatures in the West and the South....
११ मार्च, २०१९
"The Six Wings Of The Democratic Party."
According to FiveThirtyEight:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४१ टिप्पण्या:
Dems better enjoy their two years of the Extremes taking over.
I use two categories--bat shit crazy and just crazy.
(In descending order of frequency):
Also:
(In descending order of amplitude):
The Dems flipped the House by electing Moderates, and now AOC and Omar run the House.
The mayor of South Bend is a nobody.
Bernie Sanders is a Democrat Socialist. He doesn’t identify as a Democrat. He’s only running in those primaries because he gets better publicity there.
All the Dems are for open borders so they are all extremists.
There are two categories. Those who love the United States and those who hate the United States. Most Dems hate the United States. Obama was one of them.
This is how you get More Trump
Oddly enough the candidates running are often in a different group than the same individuals governing.
Sincerity. If you can fake that....
The liberalism of diversity or color judgments (e.g. racism), age discrimination (e.g. Pro-Choice/selective-child, recycled-child), political congruence, anti-nativism, social justice, environmentalism, warlock hunts and trials, prone to conflation of logical domains, redistributive change. Here's to progress.
Silver forgot the 'certifiable' progressives...as in confirmed 'certifiable'.
Since about half of Dem primary voters are extremists, all the candidates endorsed The Green New Deal.
It’s AOC and Omar’s Party now. They are The Boss.
Not a very good list in terms of accuracy and depth.
Super Progressive: Hell-bent on total destruction of the US Constitution. Socialist. Total ignorance of the historical failure of socialism around the world.
That last one should be DCINOs -- Conservative Democrats in Name Only
Manchin again and again shows himself a hack who teases with some potential conservative musings, but invariably falls in line with his Party masters.
I prefer the old days when socialists actually ran under the Socialist party.
Six wings is a lot of wings. On a bird. Or even a bug.
SIX wings? LOL
Aren't there traditionally two wings, like in a building?
Not saying it's not a useful breakdown, but it sure goes out of its way to provide nuance. Lots of freakin nuance. They seem to lose their thinking caps when it comes to breaking down non-progressive thought.
The article uses the term "bloc" rather than wing. The only place the word "wings" appears, other than the headline, is in this passage:
The old guard is less willing to placate the party’s most progressive wings.
So if you think of the extra wings a pairs of wings, you end up with some kind of sphynxian butterfly.
Another thing should be clear -- the entire Party, including the most extreme leftists, are completely corporatist.
This grouping is probably mostly fair when it comes to breaking down the potential candidates and elected officials of the current Democrat party, but I'm more curious about the actual Democrat electorate. What's the grouping of the voters like?
The eight legs of the democrat party would be a better analogy.
Six wings ? More like a discussion on what size turd in the milk tank is acceptable. I say 60-40 in favor of the Republicans to regain the majority in the House in 2020 and that Trump carries at the minimum the same states he won and possibly as many as 35 states.
As long as AOC is driving the train, and they're all on it, what difference does it make?
“I’m a Democrat, but not that kind of Democrat."
Except that it doesn't matter. Progs rule.
Of course, nice women like Althouse may continue to rationalize their vote this way for a bit longer. I'm a "serious Democrat! I wouldn't vote for a hack! How could those progs say x, it's so sad! But at some point even the nice women have to face the fact that the Dems are not nice and actually despise them and their lifestyle and their tender sensibilities. What then?
"Wings are a social construct" he parroted "and the existence of mixed-wing people renders it invalid."
Running the Party is like trying to herd cats with wings.
Why stop at six? Give 'em each a wing of their own.
"Liberal..." That word does not mean what you think it means. There are some liberals in the Democratic party, but most of the New Guard are hard leftists with nothing but contempt for liberalism. They loathe liberal concepts such as freedom of speech. There isn't a liberal bone in Ilhan Omar's or Rashida Tlaib's bodies. These people are leftist identity-politics haters, and should never be confused with liberalism.
But the actual liberals have decided to grovel, repent and cede the discussion (and the party's values) to the leftists. It won't do them any good. It never does any good to give up your principles.
The Super Progressives — Very liberal on economic and identity/cultural issues, anti-establishment
"Anti-establishment" is not the same as "Anti-Democratic-establishment". In fact, all progressives are very pro-establishment, as long as they get to be the establishment.
The party is divided into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. But they share the fervent desire to murder the Tsar and his family.
Don't worry. All factions are made up of people who's conviction that they are both good and smart is absolutely bullet-proof, so...what's the worst that could happen?
The "conservative Democrats" hold their meetings in a phone booth. A small phone booth. A very small phone booth,.
But what makes this group distinct from the next bloc of Democrats is a kind of performative wokeness, both on racial and nonracial issues
I think I had that once. Too much caffeine.
Super Progressives - young
Very Progressives - older versions of the above
Progressive New Guard - middle-aged
Progressive Old Guard - older versions of the above
Moderates - young and few
Conservative Democrats - old and fewer still
It seems like the moderates are the ones who just got elected in swing districts and may not be around very long.
I divide the party into two wings: the academics and the pragmatics. The Academics believe in progressivism as a theory; they believe in things like systemic racism, microaggressions, identity politics, and they talk about inequality in all its forms. The pragmatics are part of the left because it benefits them in some way. Think about a blue-collar worker who votes Dem because their policies help union workers, or because he likes the safety net of Medicaid in case he loses his job.
The problem for the Dems is that they rely on the pragmatics for GOTV manpower on election day, but the academics who make up the donor class and who influence the party platform despise the pragmatics, and have for a while. With Obama, the academics thought that they'd finally found a winning formula that didn't require accommodating the pragmatic wing of the party. This turned out to be untrue, as Clinton demonstrated.
Nate's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Democrats that managed to pull off wins in Texas, so far have chucked their campaign promises. They won't have straight ticket to save them in 2020.
Note the missing descriptive word:
LEFTIST.
Will Pelosi trade the future for a herd of cats?
Three, arguably four, of those categories are extremists. Not long ago it was common to say of the GOP that you can’t fly with only one wing. Now the Democrats are trying to fly with only the extreme tip of one wing. Compare and contrast the number and notoriety of the people list in the first three groups with the number and notoriety of the people in the last three.
And Joe Manchin is manifestly not conservative as the team is properly understood.
Another thing should be clear -- the entire Party, including the most extreme leftists, are completely corporatist.
Not sure how that is defined, but I know that most corporations are now outwardly leftist. One of the most astonishing and little-acknowledged developments of recent times.
How is Bernie left out of the most leftwing category?
The Progressive New Guard wants to appeal to white, working-class swing voters
And when their polices are deemed too crazy, they'll go on TV and say people didn't vote for them because of racism.
Bernie schilled for Hillary in the general election. He flew on that private jet a few times to make campaign appearances for her.
So he’s somewhat of a team player in that he will take money to support the team. He’s also been in Congress almost 30 years.
So he’s not as extreme as AOC and Omar.
Six different groups of Democrats and not one is described as "far-left". Whereas anyone on the right who even suggests limiting immigration in any way, is labeled, far-right, extremist, racist, or xenophobic. I'm not that surprised honestly. But my only question is, is this an intentional malicious act, or is the left just so emotionally compromised that it is impossible for them to have any degree of intellectual honesty?
If two of the six wings can't field a single presidential candidate in 2020, how real are they?
If the centrist half of the wings has only Joe Biden running for president, hasn't the party moved on?
We note that Tammy Baldwin is not "prominent" in ANY of those groups.
No surprise. That's exactly her desire.
On the left- talking is worse than doing. or- It's OK when Bernie does it.
Mao was ultra progressive (i.e. monotonic). Stalin was super progressive. Hitler was merely progressive. All of them were diversitists. All of them were economic and social liberals (e.g. redistributive change, age discrimination or one/selective-child, political congruence, divergence). Stalin and Hitler carried out social justice adventures without borders. Mao was more of a nationalist in scope that progressed to border nations and territories.
Six different groups of Democrats and not one is described as "far-left".
Identity politics is the new Jim Crow.
How many wings do you have to move left before no one questions someone saying the problem is "white people"?
Stupid. A limit on abortion makes you conservative? So even moderates support abortion up to birth?
Again we see the left redefining itself to maintain the fiction the left is not radical. An accurate analysis would define socialists / liberals / centrists consistently and then watch the incidence change. Instead we see the definitions change to maintain a consistent representation in the categories.
Also "moderate" Dems are not business friendly. They are corporatists or crony capitalists. This position is effectively socialism without the insistence business be subservient to government. Instead the two work collaboratively. But from the customer's perspective the difference is irrelevant.
This is completely different from being business friendly which implies enforcing basic rules to foster fair competition.
I suppose the DNC will have mandate the use of 6 different pro-nouns now. What fun.
It's strange where we've come to that a group that wants to restrict: what you can buy, what size drinks you are allowed, what kind of bags you can use, who can sell things, what words you can use, what your doctor can do for you, how much money you can make, and virtually control every aspect of your life is now called the "liberal wing". That's just crazy upside down shit. It's right in line with how this group also changes the language anytime they don't like what the words tell them, or to create a new offense you can be charged with. The modern left has one of the most illiberal agendas in history, desiring to control things that were never even considered the realm of government.
The most liberal group in America today is libertarians with conservatives a close second. The main difference today being on the issue of immigration where libertarians, to their discredit, are in step with the nut jobs on the left.
The analysis is defective, as it ignores the overwhelming factor of patronage, that is, none of these people, as politicians, is politically viable without financing and assistance over and above overt campaign funds. They need staff, institutional support, career "insurance", legal cover, and MSM backing. So they need to be owned by a patron or a cabal of them.
They cannot be individuals making their own decisions, or indeed represent their constituents against the interests of their owners. At best, in office, they can make a show of it. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
The distinctions above only define campaigning "flavors". You can supply chocolate or vanilla or strawberry, but in the end its still all ice cream. You don't have the option of peas pottage or ribeye steak.
"... On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys..." Dan. 9:27
Exactly Bagoh.
Many of us here are classical liberals. The progressive leftwing leftist democratics should NOT be called liberal, and I wish conservatives would stop saying the world "liberal" to describe the modern fascist left.
Progressive means "Progress on the road to socialism."
Buwaya's got it. Follow the money. All else is commentary.
Don't we all love labels, makes thinking so much easier. On the other side I read about the loss of the Republican Party and values to Trump, oh well.
What absurd categories! But 538 is a liberal/Dem website so there's that. Here's the real party split:
1) Crazy Leftists
2) Establishment Leftists.
3) Moderate Leftists
Category (3) consists of about six Congressmen and Senators.
Half of young Americans would rather live in a socialist country, survey finds
Unspoken is what socialism means to these people. To them it means funding their funemployment. So instead of developing useful skills in college they can take grievance studies. Then after graduation they can work part time "organizing" and still afford their bar tab and pretend to be productive members of society.
None of these so-called categories are useful in determining who will get nominated. The blacks make up 20% of the primary voters and vote as a bloc. Who are they supporting? POC make up another 15% - who will they vote for? Then there are the older white voters. Will they split their vote, or combine and vote for one of the less Crazier candidates? And most importantly of all, who is the Establishment supporting? Right now it looks like Harris.
Illegal aliens can now vote in most Blue states. Why would they be against socialism?
Why would any poor person, especially a poor legal immigrant from a socialist country be against "socialism"
So, many Conservatives are dumb on this issue. Do they understand that in most of the world, socialism is NOT a bad word? That most countries have some form of national health insurance and Socialist parties that large numbers vote for? Well, why would immigrants from these countries not support socialism? Especially if they're poor. I work with middle class immigrants from all over the world. None of them are "Conservative".
Meanwhile, Trump is gleefully pulling the wings off cats, or something.
There is a black flavor too.
Do they understand that in most of the world, socialism is NOT a bad word?
And yet they left those places to come here.
Wait until Maduro is toppled and Trump visits Venezuela right in time for the election.
A more apt breakdown might be the various types of Big Money. There's Tech Mogul money, Wall Street money, Big Media money, and Foreign Oligarch money. This makes more real sense than philosophical hair-splitting of the foot troops.
There are many sane Democrat voters in our country; but at the National level, there are very few sane Democrat elected officials.
Exhibit A - Sen. Dianne Feinstein during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Since Joe Lieberman's retirement, DiFI is arguably the most mature, rational and experienced member of the party.
And yet her staff tried to spring the Blasey Ford bullshit surprise on Kavanaugh, one of the most credentialed and honorable SCOTUS nominee we ever had.
That's how the Democrats roll. They must be pro-choice; they must be pro-gay marriage; they must be open borders, even though they conceal this position. They are a horrid group of people.
2 categories:
straight up Marxist Socialist, which included almost any POTUS candidate save Biden. And the young Turkettes.
Uniparty apparatchiks. Biden Pelosi Schumer et al.
2 categories:
straight up Marxist Socialist, which included almost any POTUS candidate save Biden. And the young Turkettes.
Uniparty apparatchiks. Biden Pelosi Schumer et al.
This is a perfect example of overthinking. The only real division is between lunatics and non-lunatics. The problem for the Democrats and the rest of the country is that 4 1/2 of the 6 wings 538 describes are lunatics.
There are Two categories of Democrats.
Those who are honest about what they want and those who are dishonest about what they want.
There are three categories of Democrat voters.
1. Stupid people who think they have good intentions.
2. Stupid people who know what is going on and think they will be in the group that gets everyone’s stuff.
3. Evil people.
It is truly astonishing how far left the Democrats have gone in just the last 4 years. Did Trump do this them, or was it always inevitable?
I try to imagine what politics today would have been like had Marco Rubio won the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2016- I want to be able to tell myself that had that happened, the Democrats would have politely accepted that defeat and become a sane opposition, but here is the thing- the more we learn about about what the Obama DoJ and FBI were up to in 2015 and 2016, the more it appears that it didn't matter who the Republican nominee was- that nominee was going to be under investigation and surveillance, was going to be accused of collaborating with the Russians when the e-mails were published by Wikileaks, and was going to be assaulted by legal warfare with no quarter given.
In short, I don't think Trump mattered one bit to why the Democrats have gone batshit crazy like this.
If you support a party that wants to nuke gun owners that don’t comply with gun confiscation you are completely amoral.
Meanwhile in the other corner:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/04/giving-the-boot
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
It is truly astonishing how far left the Democrats have gone in just the last 4 years. Did Trump do this them, or was it always inevitable?
I try to imagine what politics today would have been like had Marco Rubio won the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2016- I want to be able to tell myself that had that happened, the Democrats would have politely accepted that defeat and become a sane opposition, ...
The masks are off.
If Rubio wins the nomination he loses to Hillary in a landslide.
In the unlikely event he won...
If Rubio had won the crazies would still call him hitler and everything would be awful, but there would be no impeachment or other silliness. The “moderates” would do their bipartisan thing.
Why? Because Rubio would have given them permanent open borders and amnesty. Rubio is one of them.
There is really very little difference between the Koch Brothers and the other billionaires on amnesty, crony trade and endless wars.
They disagree a bit on how much the government should suppress their competition is all.
It is truly astonishing how far left the Democrats have gone in just the last 4 years. Did Trump do this them, or was it always inevitable?
The way you say "inevitable" suggests you think this actually occurred over these 4 years. It did not. They always believed this. What you see now is their opinion they no longer need to hide their true beliefs and goals.
Mr Wibble said...
I divide the party into two wings: the academics and the pragmatics. The Academics believe in progressivism as a theory; they believe in things like systemic racism, microaggressions, identity politics, and they talk about inequality in all its forms. The pragmatics are part of the left because it benefits them in some way. Think about a blue-collar worker who votes Dem because their policies help union workers, or because he likes the safety net of Medicaid in case he loses his job.
I would go along with that, but the pragmatic rank and file may not think of themselves as being part of the left. Also, Washington pragmatists are different from pragmatists back at home. Today, it's hard to be a Democrat in Washington if you reject or scoff at the ideas of academic progressives. That accounts for all the recent comedy. If you are running for president you have to sound at least a bit "woke" and open to the left even if your heart isn't in it. In Washington, real "pragmatists" are few, because they have to speak the party lingo and appeal to the ideological base, and the party is moving left.
Yancey Ward said...
It is truly astonishing how far left the Democrats have gone in just the last 4 years. Did Trump do this them, or was it always inevitable?
I try to imagine what politics today would have been like had Marco Rubio won the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2016- I want to be able to tell myself that had that happened, the Democrats would have politely accepted that defeat and become a sane opposition ...
There would probably be fewer investigations. No planned Rubio Tower project in Moscow. Probably no Rubio non-disclosure agreements. Probably fewer accusations of "Rubio racist," though you wouldn't be able to compare it to what would happen if Trump were elected, so it might seem like a lot.
But you probably wouldn't see so many Democrats elected in swing districts and the midterms. They wouldn't have a large majority in the House. The whole "Justice Democrats" move to the left has been brewing for a long time, but even if "Super Progressives" managed to get elected they wouldn't be so visible or so influential if Republicans still controlled the House or if Pelosi's majority were smaller.
It is truly astonishing how far left the Democrats have gone in just the last 4 years. Did Trump do this them, or was it always inevitable?
It's pretty easy to find, on the center-left, a mirror of astonishment.
It's a double-through-the-looking-glass world.
Democratic Titanomachia 2024. Ocasio-Cortez runs for president.
Lurker,
I disagree- the investigations would have just been on other things, perhaps, but I think Russia would still have been centrally accused of helping Rubio in my hypothetical because Clinton would still have had to blame them for the DNC and Podesta e-mails- the evidence is conclusive this was the Clinton plan all along- even before Trump made the joke about the server e-mails.
As for the mid-terms- the real reasons that the Democrats dominated the House elections are the changes in the rules for ballots in California, and the fact that the Republicans had so many retirements- I don't see Rubio changing either of those. And, even worse- I think Rubio wouldn't have had the pull to win any of the Senate seats Republicans took from Democrats- I think, today, we would be still saying Senators McKaskill, Donnelly, and Heitkamp.
Democrats do not have a moderate in the party. Maybe Joe from West Virginia. They filibustered Roberts AND Kavanaugh. You can’t put enough lipstick on the pigs in their party.
McGovern-Shriver.
straight up Marxist Socialist, which included almost any POTUS candidate save Biden. And the young Turkettes.
Uniparty apparatchiks. Biden Pelosi Schumer et al.
This is such bullshit. What policy (yes, name just one) of the current batch of "Democratic Socialist" (and calling themselves Socialist is stupid, it feeds into your fear, maybe Social Democrat would be more accurate) policies that are anything close to "Marxist Socialist"? Who is talking about nationalizing any industries? Who is demanding that the workers control the means of production? Who is talking about five or ten year plans (and don't give me that "what about the Green New Deal" bullshit)?
Universal Health Care (which was actually instituted by the Germans before World War I), a top tax rate that would be the same as it was in 1980, and a minimum wage that wouldn't even have the spending power that it did in the '60s and early '70s are not Marxist Socialist policies.
Who is even pushing for things that could be considered even moderately socialist? I.e., require representation of employees on corporate boards, Punitive taxes for over-compensated CEOs, a guaranteed minimum income, reform of labor laws to counter the destruction of union power and collective bargaining rights over the last 40 years.
People are definitely pushing for "moderately socialist" things like nationalizing all healthcare and punitive taxes on very high earners and even wealth. But I agree that the focus on ideological terms with recent historical baggage obscures the stupidity of our current moment. Bad idea to conflate the paroxysm of identity politics of this era with the economic leftism suggested by calling them leftists. We're in the midst of a cultural revolution, the totalitarian "Era of That's Not Funny," not an economic revolution. Rod Dreher is onto the thread here.
And the young Turkettes
I assume this is in regard to a television program rather than the actual young Turks -- the founders of the first multi-party democracy in Turkish history.
Cenk Uygur is behind the organizations behind the "Super Progressives" bloc. He's bigger than a TV show now.
The new Congress Is his catspaw:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/03/in-search-of-the-lash.php
“Brothers and sisters, there is plenty of money in this country. There is plenty of money in this world. It’s just in the wrong hands.”
The Democrat Mayor of NYC
This is mainstream thought in the democrat party.
It is also mainstream thought that Steven Scalise should rethink his support for the second amendment after getting shot by a left wing activist.
This is not a party of good people. They are thieves and totalitarians at best.
Freder Frederson said...
This is such bullshit. What policy (yes, name just one) of the current batch of "Democratic Socialist" (and calling themselves Socialist is stupid, it feeds into your fear, maybe Social Democrat would be more accurate) policies that are anything close to "Marxist Socialist"?
Ocasio-Cortez:
"Because at the end of the day as workers and as people in society, we’re the ones creating wealth. Not a corporate CEO. It’s not a CEO that’s actually creating four billion dollars a year. It is the millions of workers in this country that’s creating billions of dollars of economic productivity a year. And our system should reflect that."
Bill Deblasio:
“Brothers and sisters, there is plenty of money in this country. There is plenty of money in this world. It’s just in the wrong hands.”
It seems like a lot of the posters on this board think the Democratic Party is about to stumble back into 1972, nominating a non-electable leftist thoroughly out of tune with the public mood. I'd like to hope you are right but don't think so. Many of the voting blocs that rejected McGovern so completely only exist as husks of their former selves, such as the urban white working class. Meanwhile, the swath of voters who think one can get something for nothing by wishing it so extends down into those semi-urban and rural populations that came out so strongly for Trump. It's just that they only want that something for nothing to extend to themselves, not the ever increasing brown and black population of the country. The basic fabric of the nation in 1972 -- Vietnam and the 60s notwithstanding -- is not just torn, it has been dissolved in acid.
It takes a special kind of shit head to think they should tell people how much everyone else should get paid, how much they have to pay people, and how much people should be able to charge for a product they created.
Notably it is pieces of shit like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez who never produced anything anyone else ever wanted or were ever able to hold a job much less create a business that created jobs for other people.
The fundamental principal of progressivism is forcing other people to do what you want.
Is it any wonder that it always ends in mass murder?
Conservative Democrats are the closest to what the party used to be when I was coming of age.
Sadly, the days of Scoop Jackson and Dixy Lee Ray are long gone.
Who is even pushing for things that could be considered even moderately socialist? I.e., require representation of employees on corporate boards,
You've got me on this one. Most of the demands I have seen are about identity politics...more women, more Blacks on the boards.
Punitive taxes for over-compensated CEOs,
Taxes as punishment...sounds pretty royal to me. Taxes are supposed to be for paying for the government, not as rewards and punishments. What are we punishing the CEOs for..being successful? Do we need more or fewer successful CEOs? Still there are plenty on the Left calling for this.
a guaranteed minimum income,
This idea is being pushed by quite a few on the Left. They are even testing it in some places.
reform of labor laws to counter the destruction of union power and collective bargaining rights over the last 40 years.
What would this look like? New laws forcing workers to join and fund unions? Most union workers today are governmental employees...and I would go the other way and pass laws making it illegal for governmental employees to join/form a union.
Bill Deblasio:
This is nice soaring, almost socialist sounding, rhetoric from both of them, but what are the specific policies that would back their words. A 70% top marginal rate, which AOC has floated, is the same as the top marginal rate in 1979. A $15 minimum wage does not have the spending power of the minimum wage in the '60s and early '70s.
Deblasio especially has sorely disappointed the left. He may have run, and won, as an ultra-progressive, but he has pretty much governed like Michael Bloomberg. His willingness to throw billions of dollars at the richest man in the world and his seeming indifference to improving the MTA are especially galling.
PJ57 said...
It seems like a lot of the posters on this board think the Democratic Party is about to stumble back into 1972, nominating a non-electable leftist thoroughly out of tune with the public mood.
"It is a fact that we can change human behaviors without much change to our lifestyle and we can save the future generations of our country and this world."
Kamala Harris
Freder Frederson said...
His willingness to throw billions of dollars at the richest man in the world and his seeming indifference to improving the MTA are especially galling.
I love this.
Freder claims he is not a socialist.
Then he says not taxing someone is throwing money at them.
I don't believe in giving favorable tax treatment to giant corporations. The federal government should put an end to that.
But this basic assumption that not taxing someone is giving them money is the core of socialist thought.
Freder just doesn't think Bezos has contributed enough to the cause.
I prefer: "Statist," "Extreme Statist," etc.--in the interest of, as we used to say in the Sixties, "Telling it Like It Is."
Who is talking about nationalizing any industries? Who is demanding that the workers control the means of production? Who is talking about five or ten year plans (and don't give me that "what about the Green New Deal" bullshit)?
What is the difference between nationalizing an industry and the government dictating what that industry can offer for sale and at what price?
a top tax rate that would be the same as it was in 1980,
https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/aocs-70-percent-billionaire-tax-is-not-high-enough-90-percent-is-more-like-it/
Perhaps the better question is why the left spends so much time denying what it wants. If people like Freder didn't want these things wouldn't they at least on occasion criticize the people who so support them? But instead every single criticism is of people who oppose what Freder implies (but revealingly does not explicitly state) he also opposes.
What a strange sense of priorities.
What are we punishing the CEOs for..being successful? Do we need more or fewer successful CEOs?
We don't punish CEOs for anything, even when they fail spectacularly, like Bill Esrey (Sprint CEO) or Carly Fiorina.
We need more successful CEOs, not just CEOs who will make outrageous compensation and walk away from a failed tenure with a generous golden parachute.
Hell, look at the fiasco of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes. A bunch of rich idiots threw money at her snake oil. At least she may have to do some jail time.
He may have run, and won, as an ultra-progressive, but he has pretty much governed like Michael Bloomberg. His willingness to throw billions of dollars at the richest man in the world and his seeming indifference to improving the MTA are especially galling.
Some day Freder may understand corporatism and shitty government service is ultra-progressive.
But probably not.
Costco just announced minimum raises to 15.00.hr and up. Supply and demand. We do not need the damn government to pull the strings. It works best if allowed a natural flow.
I see signs at fast food joints all over town promising 15.00+ per hour.
What is the difference between nationalizing an industry and the government dictating what that industry can offer for sale and at what price?
And who is advocating this?
https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/aocs-70-percent-billionaire-tax-is-not-high-enough-90-percent-is-more-like-it/
I'm sorry, which congressional district or state does Bob Hennelly represent in Congress? Is he a mayor or governor? Maybe elected as dog catcher somewhere?
Very Progressive and Super Progressive rather than Hard Left and Extreme Left. Do you think a similar breakdown of Republicans would receive such generous wording?
Consipcuously missing: the Corpro-Kleptocratic Globalista Wing: The Clintons.
But maybe it is SAFER to not mention THEM, eh Komrads?
And who is advocating this?
Effectively every elected Democrat voted for the CFPB.
I'm sorry, which congressional district or state does Bob Hennelly represent in Congress? Is he a mayor or governor? Maybe elected as dog catcher somewhere?
Ten minutes ago no one was for it. Now that we've proven him wrong he simply changes the standard.
BTW the article is about AOC's support so apparently Freder thinks she's just a dogcatcher too rather than the person who wrote this cycle's manifesto co-sponsored or supported by every announced Dem candidate for President.
What will you change your standard to now Freder?
I would add a 7th wing: public employee unions.
- Krumhorn
Freder claims he is not a socialist.
Can you show me where I claimed I am not a socialist. I'm not saying I am, but like Ann and her noncommittal stance on climate change, you can't find a post by me saying I'm not a socialist.
Then he says not taxing someone is throwing money at them.
I consider subsidizing huge corporations and giving them tax breaks that are not available to your local bodega is throwing money at them.
But this basic assumption that not taxing someone is giving them money is the core of socialist thought.
No it isn't. That you think it is shows that you have no idea what socialism is.
Ten minutes ago no one was for it. Now that we've proven him wrong he simply changes the standard.
I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about the current crop of elected Democrats, not every single breathing soul in the country. Sorry if you are confused about the topic of this thread.
Some day Freder may understand corporatism and shitty government service is ultra-progressive.
My bad. I didn't realize you consider Scott Walker an 'ultra progressive".
I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about the current crop of elected Democrats, not every single breathing soul in the country. Sorry if you are confused about the topic of this thread.
It's revealing you think AOC has not been elected. So writers don't matter, but neither do elected officials. Apparently the new standard is "whatever it needs to be". Well that's not really a new standard for Freder.
Sorry if you are confused about the topic of this thread.
No one is confused. We oppose what the left wants and you want to troll that criticism hoping to make it less effective thus supporting the far left's goals.
Freder: "Can you show me where I claimed I am not a socialist. I'm not saying I am, but like Ann and her noncommittal stance on climate change, you can't find a post by me saying I'm not a socialist."
Any particular reason why we have to chase you down to get a sraight answer on this? Are you a socialist or not?
It's revealing you think AOC has not been elected. So writers don't matter, but neither do elected officials.
Your reading comprehension sucks. The article argues that AOC's suggested rate of 70% is not high enough. Nowhere does it imply or state that AOC is now pushing for a 90% top rate.
"And who is advocating this?"
In related news, Democrats insist they don't want gun confiscation or infanticide.
Any particular reason why we have to chase you down to get a sraight answer on this? Are you a socialist or not?
I'll hold out until Ann definitively states whether or not she believes in man-made climate change resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases.
By your standards, with the caveat that almost no one on this site has any idea of the meaning of socialism or Marxism (at least not in the sense that a meaningful discussion of the topic), I am a fucking commie, Stalinist (another word you throw out without a clue of what it means) even.
I even have a Commie flag tacked up in the wall inside my garage.
So Mike Murphy had been receiving funds from s Chinese conglomerate
I even have a Commie flag tacked up on the wall inside my garage.
Oh never mind:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=380167
Your reading comprehension sucks. The article argues that AOC's suggested rate of 70% is not high enough.
So because someone else wants more her position must be reasonable. Your logic sucks.
Plus you're ignorant - as always - since AOC indicated support for 90% rates at SXSW yesterday or the day before.
since AOC indicated support for 90% rates at SXSW yesterday or the day before.
Link please.
It's not even mentioned in Fox's coverage of her appearance. So unless you can provide a link, I call bullshit.
I call bullshit.
Who cares?
Bill de Blasio
✔
@BilldeBlasio
Brothers and sisters, there is plenty of money in this country. There is plenty of money in this world. It’s just in the wrong hands. https://twitter.com/billdeblasio/status/1104761073696210945?s=21 …
Here's a distillation of moderate thinking - at least according to Freder.
Who cares?
So when I catch you making shit up, it is "who cares"? Anyone who believes that the truth has some value.
Here's a distillation of moderate thinking - at least according to Freder.
Again, your reading comprehension sucks. I specifically said that Deblasio ran as an extreme progressive but his actual conduct once in office has been anything but.
So when I catch you making shit up, it is "who cares"
You didn't catch anything. I laugh at the idea you're the judge of bullshit - someone who spends all his time lying about what he supports.
I specifically said that Deblasio ran as an extreme progressive but his actual conduct once in office has been anything but.
To summarize - a moderate.
It's not even mentioned in Fox's coverage of her appearance. So unless you can provide a link, I call bullshit.
Simply google AOC and 90 percent tax rate. There are dozens of articles of her supporting this idea. She's been harping on it for weeks.
Pull your head out.
Oh that's not suspicious:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-11/twitter-suspends-daily-caller-journo-after-trump-retweets-dark-money-article
“I'll hold out until Ann definitively states whether or not she believes in man-made climate change resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases.”
Oddly enough, I actually was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
Simply google AOC and 90 percent tax rate. There are dozens of articles of her supporting this idea.
That is exactly what I did, and although there were plenty of articles that do indeed mention a 90% (and a 90%+ rate was in effect from 1951 to 1963) rate when discussing her proposed 70% rate, nowhere did I see her proposing such a high rate.
But I am kind of stupid. Can you provide me with the link?
Oddly enough, I actually was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
If your blog has taught me anything about history, it is how benign and progressive the Spanish Inquisition was.
I think we can conclude that "socialism" means nothing.
And full on "marxist socialism" means double nothing.
"We need more successful CEOs"
How do we accomplish that Freder?
Do me a small kindness, Freder.
Do you have a garage? If you do go out and look at the garage door. Not the opener. Just the door.
Now ask yourself this question," where did this come from?" Work it back to it's source and think of all the processes and people involved with getting it from raw material to the opening in your garage.
You can do this to any number of things you take for granted.
How many bureaucrats do you think were involved in the process?
I'll tellyou.
Not a fucking one.
I would add a 7th wing: public employee unions.
- Krumhorn
Damn straight! In 2016, even Defense Department civilian employees gave 84% of their political donations to Shrillary, lowest amongst all cabinet departments.
"If your blog has taught me anything about history, it is how benign and progressive the Spanish Inquisition was."
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Do not assume you have a solid grasp of reality, because what you know may not be so.
And this goes back a very long time.
How many bureaucrats do you think were involved in the process?
I'll tellyou.
Not a fucking one.
Well maybe not in the invention of a garage door. But how many bureaucrats are involved in ensuring that the water coming out of your faucet is safe; that the food you eat won't kill you; that automobiles are safer now than they have ever been; that if you buy a mattress it is not full of old oily rags (yes, that tag on the mattress everyone makes fun of is one of the oldest consumer protection laws in the country); that commercial aviation is the safest way to travel.
The answer: a fucking lot.
And let's look specifically at garage doors. If not for bureaucrats, who would assign the frequencies of your garage door opener so that everytime you talked on the phone, changed the channel on your tv, the garage door doesn't open?
Freder. Missing the point by a large margin.
Where does stuff come from, Freder?
Freder.
Commercial avaiation in this country is regulated by.........................the airlines.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा