I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.
I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?
I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.
I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?
I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.
Believe what? That HRC is progressive enough for mrussel1? I would say that mrussel1 is the leading authority on that subject.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.
I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?
I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.
Believe what? That HRC is progressive enough for mrussel1? I would say that mrussel1 is the leading authority on that subject.
No, I mean with regards to him asking "do we all get opinions". Sure! You bet!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
i think compared to the RNC, trump and the like ... people appear to be progressive but in a more objective look ... likely isn't ...
So is our POTUS a progressive or conservative?
definitely not a progressive but that could be just tied into the system ... i could see if he lived elsewhere - he probably would be one ...
There will be very little daylight between his policies and HRC's, in my estimation. I wonder if she will get the same benefit of the doubt from liberals.
It sounds like people use the the terms progressive and liberal interchangeably. I don't. I think a liberal is to the left of a progressive. I think the latter are more incrementalists.
for sure their policies will be the same ... that's been the crux of much of what I have been writing on this board ... the system is rigged by the establishment to cater to the establishment ... not gonna change under clinton or trump ...
in any case - I do believe personally that Obama is a progressive at heart but not Clinton ... not by any stretch ...
key issues if you are a progressive: * anti-war * anti-corporate welfare * pro environment
Along with: - Woman's right to choose - Implementation of Obergfell - criminal justice reform - SCOTUS - Path to citizenship - Protection of the progressive tax system - BLM
I could go on and on. As far as I can tell Clinton and Obama are aligned on these issues. Yet one is in his heart a progressive, but the other is not. I don't claim to have the unique skill of reading hearts, I just have to read votes, debates and public proclamations.
I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.
I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?
I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.
Believe what? That HRC is progressive enough for mrussel1? I would say that mrussel1 is the leading authority on that subject.
No, I mean with regards to him asking "do we all get opinions". Sure! You bet!
Oohhh, I see, sorry. Yeah, you've never discouraged opinions! As for HRC and being progressive.... I think that she isn't hugely progressive, but she's not hugely un-progressive either. I think she has been extremely vilified by the anti-Hillary media, and that a lot of people appear to be falling for it, hook, line and sinker. It has really snowballed and I think it's become pretty ridiculous at this point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.
I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?
I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.
You said calling Clinton a progressive is 'beyond imagining', yet her votes clearly indicate she is one. If you want to say "Clinton is not progressive enough for me" or "not by my definition", then fine. But there is no one definition or litmus test on being a progressive, liberal, conservative or moderate.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
edited August 2016
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
i think compared to the RNC, trump and the like ... people appear to be progressive but in a more objective look ... likely isn't ...
So is our POTUS a progressive or conservative?
definitely not a progressive but that could be just tied into the system ... i could see if he lived elsewhere - he probably would be one ...
There will be very little daylight between his policies and HRC's, in my estimation. I wonder if she will get the same benefit of the doubt from liberals.
It sounds like people use the the terms progressive and liberal interchangeably. I don't. I think a liberal is to the left of a progressive. I think the latter are more incrementalists.
for sure their policies will be the same ... that's been the crux of much of what I have been writing on this board ... the system is rigged by the establishment to cater to the establishment ... not gonna change under clinton or trump ...
in any case - I do believe personally that Obama is a progressive at heart but not Clinton ... not by any stretch ...
key issues if you are a progressive: * anti-war * anti-corporate welfare * pro environment
Along with: - Woman's right to choose - Implementation of Obergfell - criminal justice reform - SCOTUS - Path to citizenship - Protection of the progressive tax system - BLM
I could go on and on. As far as I can tell Clinton and Obama are aligned on these issues. Yet one is in his heart a progressive, but the other is not. I don't claim to have the unique skill of reading hearts, I just have to read votes, debates and public proclamations.
the first two are table stakes these days ... and the others are not really progressive issues except maybe the tax system which is clearly not in favour of progressives now ... also, the nomination of kaine as a running mate is not really a progressive move ...
again - obama's policies are NOT progressive ... at all ... all I'm saying is that if Obama lived elsewhere - I could see him being a progressive ...
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.
Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.
Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...
Gotta be awfully careful about how bands are described these days. You never know whose favorite rock band could be described as having segued from small/ independent/feisty/uncompromising to corporate/festival playing/radio friendly/"sellouts". More and more, I try to avoid those kinds of characterizations- at least publicly. In any case, I listen to what I like. And I must say, I still like Dookie.
"like there can't be a 'degree' of something" Sure, why not! Hillary is only moderately like a modern day Republican- certainly not as far right as many of them are today. I would be OK with giving her that much.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.
Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...
Gotta be awfully careful about how bands are described these days. You never know whose favorite rock band could be described as having segued from small/ independent/feisty/uncompromising to corporate/festival playing/radio friendly/"sellouts". More and more, I try to avoid those kinds of characterizations- at least publicly. In any case, I listen to what I like. And I must say, I still like Dookie.
"like there can't be a 'degree' of something" Sure, why not! Hillary is only moderately like a modern day Republican- certainly not as far right as many of them are today. I would be OK with giving her that much.
My post was written entirely in jest, contradicting my stance on HRC. Green Day definitely has some punk elements although I wouldn't call them punk. I do know that guys from CA usually don't sing with a British accent, but oh well. I do think that American Idiot was one of the better rock albums of the first part of this century, although there is a dearth of options.
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.
Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...
Gotta be awfully careful about how bands are described these days. You never know whose favorite rock band could be described as having segued from small/ independent/feisty/uncompromising to corporate/festival playing/radio friendly/"sellouts". More and more, I try to avoid those kinds of characterizations- at least publicly. In any case, I listen to what I like. And I must say, I still like Dookie.
"like there can't be a 'degree' of something" Sure, why not! Hillary is only moderately like a modern day Republican- certainly not as far right as many of them are today. I would be OK with giving her that much.
My post was written entirely in jest, contradicting my stance on HRC. Green Day definitely has some punk elements although I wouldn't call them punk. I do know that guys from CA usually don't sing with a British accent, but oh well. I do think that American Idiot was one of the better rock albums of the first part of this century, although there is a dearth of options.
Or New York! On Ramones early stuff, Joey sounds like he's trying to sound a bit Brit. But lots of love for Joey! And yeah, American Idiot has some great stuff.
My post was written a bit in jest as well... but I still can't see how HRC is progressive. I think we have to agree to a stale mate on that one.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.
Very perceptive post. The term has been hijacked and it applies, evidently, to one issue evidently. And that issue is populist economic agenda. Excellent thought by you, PJ_Soul..
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.
It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.
It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.
Yes, I wasn't talking about personal wealth. But this is what I'm saying. Just because she is "in bed with big money", that doesn't mean you can just make the leap to "anti-progressive". Big money isn't actually a big one-headed monster that means one thing to all people, and doesn't define progressiveness in and of itself. I.e. HRC could be "in bed" with big money... and some of that money could be coming from a big bad company that is starting to seriously look at investment in alternate energy manufacturing or something. Or simply big bad companies that also publicly support LBGT rights and pro-choice and donate to progressive charities (all while doing its other awful big bad business stuff, like union busting). This massive "big money" blanket is a bit of a sham in this particular context. As though progressives can't be in bed with corporations. Hahahahaha. Since when???
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.
It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.
Yes, I wasn't talking about personal wealth. But this is what I'm saying. Just because she is "in bed with big money", that doesn't mean you can just make the leap to "anti-progressive". Big money isn't actually a big one-headed monster that means one thing to all people, and doesn't define progressiveness in and of itself. I.e. HRC could be "in bed" with big money... and some of that money could be coming from a big bad company that is starting to seriously look at investment in alternate energy manufacturing or something. Or simply big bad companies that also publicly support LBGT rights and pro-choice and donate to progressive charities (all while doing its other awful big bad business stuff, like union busting). This massive "big money" blanket is a bit of a sham in this particular context. As though progressives can't be in bed with corporations. Hahahahaha. Since when???
I guess it goes back to the question of how we define "progressive". It becomes circular!
Speaking of circular, Circle Jerks- now that's punk!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.
It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.
Yes, I wasn't talking about personal wealth. But this is what I'm saying. Just because she is "in bed with big money", that doesn't mean you can just make the leap to "anti-progressive". Big money isn't actually a big one-headed monster that means one thing to all people, and doesn't define progressiveness in and of itself. I.e. HRC could be "in bed" with big money... and some of that money could be coming from a big bad company that is starting to seriously look at investment in alternate energy manufacturing or something. Or simply big bad companies that also publicly support LBGT rights and pro-choice and donate to progressive charities (all while doing its other awful big bad business stuff, like union busting). This massive "big money" blanket is a bit of a sham in this particular context. As though progressives can't be in bed with corporations. Hahahahaha. Since when???
I guess it goes back to the question of how we define "progressive". It becomes circular!
Speaking of circular, Circle Jerks- now that's punk!
It's not really circular though. It's a red herring on your part (sorry, no offense, but it's true!).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
Red herring and straw men. Well fine then! I'll just go listen to some punk rock since I'm not doing so well here.
(No worries, I love ya too PJ_Soul. I just can't get on board withe notion of Hillary being progressive. Carry on!)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
because there is no true definition of progressive doesn't mean there can't be parameters placed ... i would agree with brian that most progressives are anti corporate welfare ... and that people who at least appear to be beholden to corporations generally do not fall in the category of progressive ...
her voting for iraq war and the patriot act also disqualifies her in my opinion ...
because there is no true definition of progressive doesn't mean there can't be parameters placed ... i would agree with brian that most progressives are anti corporate welfare ... and that people who at least appear to be beholden to corporations generally do not fall in the category of progressive ...
her voting for iraq war and the patriot act also disqualifies her in my opinion ...
Well here are her statements when it comes to taxation. What part of this do you think makes her anti-progressive in terms of taxation?
- Restore basic fairness to our tax code. Hillary will implement a “fair share surcharge” on multi-millionaires and billionaires and fight for measures like the Buffett Rule to ensure the wealthiest Americans do not pay a lower tax rate than hardworking middle-class families. She’ll close loopholes that create a private tax system for the most fortunate, and she’ll ensure multi-million-dollar estates are paying their fair share of taxes. - Close corporate and Wall Street tax loopholes and invest in America. Hillary will close tax loopholes like inversions that reward companies for shifting profits and jobs overseas. She will charge an “exit tax” for companies leaving the U.S. to settle up on their untaxed foreign earnings. She will close tax loopholes that let Wall Street money managers pay lower rates than some middle-class families. And she’ll reward businesses that invest in good-paying jobs here in the United States. - Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses so they can hire and grow. The smallest businesses, with one to five employees, spend 150 hours and $1,100 per employee on federal tax compliance. That’s more than 20 times higher than the average for far larger firms. We’ve got to fix that. - Provide tax relief to working families from the rising costs they face. For too many years, middle-class families have been squeezed by rising costs for everything from child care to health care to affording college. Hillary will offer relief from these rising costs, including tax relief for Americans facing excessive out-of-pocket health care costs and for those caring for an ill or elderly family member. - Pay for ambitious investments in a fiscally responsible way. Hillary believes that we can afford to pay for ambitious, progressive investments in good-paying jobs, debt-free college, and other measures to strengthen growth, broaden opportunity, and reduce inequality. Hillary will use the proceeds from ensuring the wealthiest and the largest corporations pay their fair share to pay for these investments without adding to the debt.
As for voting for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act .... that was 15 years ago during a very different time. We're talking about now, what she's going to do as President.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
"[The G.O.P.] already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.
The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary."
Yup!
i love how her supporters ignore these posts ...
Except she is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-entitlements... What you are seeing is an opportunity for the Democrats to further expand its playing field, and its constituency. Trump has presented an opportunity of a lifetime and the Clinton campaign is wisely expanding its state reach and electoral advantage. White married women and college educated whites are moving towards the Dems. Good for her, good for the Democrats and good for the country.
No one is avoiding anything....but don't expect a bunch of talk about an opinion piece.
This is so false it's laughable. Dems are leaving the party in record numbers.
"[The G.O.P.] already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.
The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary."
Yup!
i love how her supporters ignore these posts ...
Except she is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-entitlements... What you are seeing is an opportunity for the Democrats to further expand its playing field, and its constituency. Trump has presented an opportunity of a lifetime and the Clinton campaign is wisely expanding its state reach and electoral advantage. White married women and college educated whites are moving towards the Dems. Good for her, good for the Democrats and good for the country.
No one is avoiding anything....but don't expect a bunch of talk about an opinion piece.
This is so false it's laughable. Dems are leaving the party in record numbers.
Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:
But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.
I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.
Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a degree of something...
Man, you had me convinced that you actually were a heart reader, until you said it was all in jest...
I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,999
I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"
Considering most of that money is spent on junk that rots kids teeth and turns them into rattlesnakes on amphetamines, I wonder if maybe neither are a great idea?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
- Woman's right to choose
- Implementation of Obergfell
- criminal justice reform
- SCOTUS
- Path to citizenship
- Protection of the progressive tax system
- BLM
I could go on and on. As far as I can tell Clinton and Obama are aligned on these issues. Yet one is in his heart a progressive, but the other is not. I don't claim to have the unique skill of reading hearts, I just have to read votes, debates and public proclamations.
As for HRC and being progressive.... I think that she isn't hugely progressive, but she's not hugely un-progressive either. I think she has been extremely vilified by the anti-Hillary media, and that a lot of people appear to be falling for it, hook, line and sinker. It has really snowballed and I think it's become pretty ridiculous at this point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html
again - obama's policies are NOT progressive ... at all ... all I'm saying is that if Obama lived elsewhere - I could see him being a progressive ...
But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?
Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...
"like there can't be a 'degree' of something" Sure, why not! Hillary is only moderately like a modern day Republican- certainly not as far right as many of them are today. I would be OK with giving her that much.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
My post was written a bit in jest as well... but I still can't see how HRC is progressive. I think we have to agree to a stale mate on that one.
Speaking of circular, Circle Jerks- now that's punk!
(No worries, I love ya too PJ_Soul. I just can't get on board withe notion of Hillary being progressive. Carry on!)
her voting for iraq war and the patriot act also disqualifies her in my opinion ...
- Restore basic fairness to our tax code. Hillary will implement a “fair share surcharge” on multi-millionaires and billionaires and fight for measures like the Buffett Rule to ensure the wealthiest Americans do not pay a lower tax rate than hardworking middle-class families. She’ll close loopholes that create a private tax system for the most fortunate, and she’ll ensure multi-million-dollar estates are paying their fair share of taxes.
- Close corporate and Wall Street tax loopholes and invest in America. Hillary will close tax loopholes like inversions that reward companies for shifting profits and jobs overseas. She will charge an “exit tax” for companies leaving the U.S. to settle up on their untaxed foreign earnings. She will close tax loopholes that let Wall Street money managers pay lower rates than some middle-class families. And she’ll reward businesses that invest in good-paying jobs here in the United States.
- Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses so they can hire and grow. The smallest businesses, with one to five employees, spend 150 hours and $1,100 per employee on federal tax compliance. That’s more than 20 times higher than the average for far larger firms. We’ve got to fix that.
- Provide tax relief to working families from the rising costs they face. For too many years, middle-class families have been squeezed by rising costs for everything from child care to health care to affording college. Hillary will offer relief from these rising costs, including tax relief for Americans facing excessive out-of-pocket health care costs and for those caring for an ill or elderly family member.
- Pay for ambitious investments in a fiscally responsible way. Hillary believes that we can afford to pay for ambitious, progressive investments in good-paying jobs, debt-free college, and other measures to strengthen growth, broaden opportunity, and reduce inequality. Hillary will use the proceeds from ensuring the wealthiest and the largest corporations pay their fair share to pay for these investments without adding to the debt.
As for voting for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act .... that was 15 years ago during a very different time. We're talking about now, what she's going to do as President.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/15/is-trump-destroying-the-gop-this-new-poll-will-terrify-republicans/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story&utm_term=.242f651b50a6
And it's got polling numbers. You like polls right?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&biw=320&bih=460&ei=fjiyV5PrCYHZmQHFxa2wAg&q=democrats+leaving+the+party&oq=+democrats+leaving+Party+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.1.0j0i7i30k1j0j0i7i30k1.7141.20022.0.23602.54.44.0.1.1.0.417.6752.3j36j2j2j1.44.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..42.10.1386.3..41j0i22i30k1j0i67k1j33i21k1j33i160k1j30i10k1.rx1sVcuXHJ4
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9140
http://www.alternet.org/story/146207/the_key_differences_between_progressive_and_liberal,_and_how_"liberal"_thinking_can_be_part_of_the_problem
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/progressivism-and-liberalism
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465671983/democrats-debate-what-is-a-progressive-and-who-wants-to-be-one