• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker: "So Many Progressives Mourning John Bolton's Firing"

COTO said:
I wouldn't call Mr. Bolton a "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination, but he shares the anti-Russian, pro-Syrian-invasion attitude I've seen expressed by many progressives.
Click to expand...

The problem is you guys think corporate media = progressive. That is simply not the case. Much of the media takes a status-quo neoliberal stance. I don't know of a single Progressive who was for a war in Syria. Many display distrust of Russia, but that is natural considering their government is an oligarchy that murders journalists. Some Progressive media sources I read, like Counterpunch and Truthdig, are a bit too Russia-government friendly, at times.
 
aociswundumho said:
He claims (paraphrasing) that progressives see the state as answer to all human problems. I agree the claim is a bit too strong, but it's certainly accurate. Whether it's guns, the environment, healthcare, education, etc, the list goes on and on and on of problems which progressives believe can only be fixed by government intervention.

I don't understand how you could see this as "asinine" when it's pretty obvious he's correct.
Click to expand...

He is attempting to remold an ideology to fit his agenda. Just because he can pull one 'similarity' out of his behind does not mean he embodies an entire group. And just because the Trumpcult now embraces isolationism (when 90% used to be for nation-building) that doesn't change who John Bolton is.

Like I said before, if Tucker's only qualification for being a Progressive is to be for using government to make change, then he is a Progressive as he is for using government to stop/slow down immigration.
 
Geoist said:
Like I said before, if Tucker's only qualification for being a Progressive is to be for using government to make change,
Click to expand...

You are altering what he said in order to make it easy to falsify, i.e. a straw man. Seeing the state as the answer to all human problems is not equivalent to using government to make change. Like it or not, progressives are statists.

If you disagree, name some problems where prominent progressives have put forth market solutions. I can't think of any examples, but perhaps you can.
 
Geoist said:
:confused:
To say he was for military intervention early on is accurate. Would he have stated he was taking a 'Progressive' position? .
Click to expand...

I would suggest that would depend on the reasoning used to get there and the stated intentions.

If you wish to get serious about the history of democrats it is pretty bad.

Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

"Historians of the twentieth century often represent the New Deal–era United States and Nazi Germany as polar opposites. This unsettling book demolishes that orthodoxy. It carefully documents how the tradition of racist laws in the United States inspired and instructed Adolf Hitler and Nazi lawmakers in fashioning their own racist policies. Many forget that as late as the 1930s, the United States remained one of the world’s most salient models of legally institutionalized racism. Nazi lawyers closely studied Jim Crow laws imposing segregation, denying equal citizenship, banning nonwhite immigration, and criminalizing miscegenation. Hitler himself praised the United States for its record on race relations, not least for its westward expansion through the conquest and extermination of Native Americans. Whitman is admirably careful not to exaggerate the influence of the U.S. model on Nazi Germany: he recognizes that twentieth-century American southern racism was decentralized rather than fascist and incapable of inspiring mass murder on the industrial scale of the Holocaust. Indeed, Nazi jurists criticized their American counterparts for their hypocrisy in publicly denying yet locally practicing systematic racism. Whitman reminds readers of the subtle ironies of modern history and of the need to be constantly vigilant against racism."

Whitman is a flaming progressive democrat so he conveniently neglects to tell you a critical aspect of all this.

"Whitman, a progressive legal scholar, is also reluctant to assign blame where it is due. He talks about “American white supremacy,” “American racism,” “American law” and “American influence on the Nuremberg Laws.”36 Surely he knows that the Democratic laws were bitterly contested under the nation’s two-party system. Yes, there were antimiscegenation laws in a couple of Republican states, but America in general didn’t do this; the Democrats did. Yet as the very title of Whitman’s book suggests, he resorts to the familiar tactic of blaming America—not the Democratic Party—for inspiring Nazi policies.
." - Death of a Nation
 
Geoist said:
At 2:50 Tucker makes the asinine comments about John Bolton being of the 'left'. For those who don't want to watch the video (I don't blame you) he pretty much said by believing the government could be used to effect positive change (e.g. military interventionism), Bolton is a Progressive/leftist. Of course, Tucker doesn't apply the same principle to himself when it comes to his support of the government building a border wall, immigration, etc. Due to his unwavering support of Trump, I would not doubt he also supports our continued increase of the military budget. I'm also sure he would not have applied this odd definition of 'leftist' to himself when he initially supported the Iraq War.



Tucker: "Bolton was one of the most progressive people in the Trump Administration."

:doh
Click to expand...


Ummm...what?

Since when was Bolton progressive?

Talk about fake news...
 
aociswundumho said:
You are altering what he said in order to make it easy to falsify, i.e. a straw man. Seeing the state as the answer to all human problems is not equivalent to using government to make change. Like it or not, progressives are statists.
Click to expand...

Where did Tucker show how Bolton thought the government was the answer to wealth disparity? Environmental issues? Education? Has Bolton said the state is the answer to all human problems?

Not only does he fail to show the connection between Progressives and Bolton (they are overwhelmingly peaceniks and anti-interventionist) he failed to show any other examples of a connection.

Progressives are generally statists, but not all statists are progressives. If Tucker said Bolton was a statist and left it at that I would have agreed.
 
akyron said:
I would suggest that would depend on the reasoning used to get there and the stated intentions.

If you wish to get serious about the history of democrats it is pretty bad.
Click to expand...

This thread is about Progressives, not Democrats. They are not one-in-the-same.
 
So where are the Progressives crying over the firing of Bolton? Haven't seen one yet.
 
Carlson is a lying idiot and total hack. This is why Fox viewers like him.
 
Geoist said:
There are some Democrats who have taken money from the NRA. Are you saying Progressives/liberals/Dems are pro-gun?
Click to expand...

Tell me, How many Democrats were out in the street protesting Obama's wars?
 
Nap said:
Tell me, How many Democrats were out in the street protesting Obama's wars?
Click to expand...

Answer the question.

I was a critic of those on the 'left' who failed to criticize Obama. Still, funding conflicts in the ME draws a whole lot less attention than starting new wars for this country to get involved in.

Obama’s Dirty War in Yemen - CounterPunch.org
 
aociswundumho said:
He claims (paraphrasing) that progressives see the state as answer to all human problems. I agree the claim is a bit too strong, but it's certainly accurate. Whether it's guns, the environment, healthcare, education, etc, the list goes on and on and on of problems which progressives believe can only be fixed by government intervention.

I don't understand how you could see this as "asinine" when it's pretty obvious he's correct.
Click to expand...

You don't think there should be regulations in healthcare? No government funding of education whatsoever? Maybe the extremist is not "progressives" :lamo

Tucker is defining progressivism as "thinking the government can effect a positive change." Are you really buying into that narrative?
 
Geoist said:
Where did Tucker show how Bolton thought the government was the answer to wealth disparity? Environmental issues? Education? Has Bolton said the state is the answer to all human problems?

Not only does he fail to show the connection between Progressives and Bolton (they are overwhelmingly peaceniks and anti-interventionist) he failed to show any other examples of a connection.

Progressives are generally statists, but not all statists are progressives. If Tucker said Bolton was a statist and left it at that I would have agreed.
Click to expand...

"Statist" is a meaningless termed tossed out by libertarians because libertarians think it sounds scary.

Statist is the opposite of anarchist, not the opposite of libertarian.
 
Geoist said:
The left has completely sold out to the pro-war lobby? What is this, the Twilight Zone?

Who was protesting Bush's push to go into Iraq? It certainly wasn't Tucker Carlson. It wasn't the right-wing voters. They were in lock-step with Bush's neo-con nation-building agenda. It was the anti-war left around the world who protested in the streets. Far right Fox News commentators mocked the anti-war movement.

Aside from that, Tucker's definition of a Progressive is completely asinine.
Click to expand...

The first part of your comment is correct- the left was right all along about Bush's unscrupulous war, but remember that the neolibs at the NYT and elsewhere supported the war, even after it became fairly obvious that the reasons Bush gave for going to war were based upon lies.

Also, as a side note, progressive antiwar groups like Code Pink seemed to disappear as soon as Barack Obama was sworn into office. Yet American casualties continued to occur in Iraq and Afghanistan during Obama's two terms. Americans are still dying in Afghanistan in 2019, yet it's largely become a forgotten war to both the right and left.
 
Mr Person said:
Carlson is a lying idiot and total hack. This is why Fox viewers like him.
Click to expand...

akyron said:
In what way?
Click to expand...

= "List some ways so I can announce that what you said isn't proof and thereby score an Internets Victory Point. MWwwwaaahahahah!"




He's a lying idiot and total hack in every way. This has been catalogued over God knows how many threads. I'm not going to do your research for you, especially given the other hackish **** I've seen you say on a regular basis.

Nibble on someone else's ankle.
 
Deuce said:
You don't think there should be regulations in healthcare? No government funding of education whatsoever?
Click to expand...

No to both. I don't believe medical decisions should be based on politics, and I don't want the state involved in education whatsoever.

Tucker is defining progressivism as "thinking the government can effect a positive change."
Click to expand...

No, he isn't. Watch the video at the 3:00 mark. He claims (paraphrased) that progressives see the state as the answer to all human problems.
 
Mr Person said:
= "List some ways so I can announce that what you said isn't proof and thereby score an Internets Victory Point. MWwwwaaahahahah!"




He's a lying idiot and total hack in every way. This has been catalogued over God knows how many threads. I'm not going to do your research for you, especially given the other hackish **** I've seen you say on a regular basis.

Nibble on someone else's ankle.
Click to expand...

Ok so you do not know. So noted.
 
AmNat said:
The Democrats supported the Iraq War almost to a man. They only turned on it when doing so became politically useful for them. They immediately resumed support for war when Obama became President.
Click to expand...

Progressives did not support the Iraq War. Conservative and centrist Democrats did. You're conflating Democrat with 'liberal' and 'progressive' they are not related terms. Democrat is a party vehicle, liberal and progressive are ideologies. A Klansman could be a Democrat, just as a progressive could be a Republican. For example, Nixon was far more progressive on most issues than Obama.
 
COTO said:
I wouldn't call Mr. Bolton a "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination, but he shares the anti-Russian, pro-Syrian-invasion attitude I've seen expressed by many progressives.
Click to expand...

Hatred of Putin, his corrupt kleptocracy, and his bankrolling of neo-fascists movements in Europe doesn't equate to anti-Russian sentiment. And progressives don't want to invade Syria.

US foreign policy of late hasn't really a progressive versus conservative issue. It's pro-intervention versus anti-intervention.

I think of the reasons why some equate progressivism with interventionism is because the US media--which is nothing if not socially progressive on domestic matters--is also staunchly pro-intervention. Hence people equate the two.
Click to expand...

You yourself seem pretty confused. I've seldom met a progressive who wants to invade any nation on Earth.
 
Deuce said:
"Statist" is a meaningless termed tossed out by libertarians because libertarians think it sounds scary.

Statist is the opposite of anarchist, not the opposite of libertarian.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree. There are some anarchists who still consider themselves progressives so that is why I said 'most progressives are statists.' I have no interest, at this time, in debating the merits of the term 'statist' so I decided to let that one go.
 
truthatallcost said:
The first part of your comment is correct- the left was right all along about Bush's unscrupulous war, but remember that the neolibs at the NYT and elsewhere supported the war, even after it became fairly obvious that the reasons Bush gave for going to war were based upon lies.
Click to expand...

I agree, the neolibs were either for the war or mostly silent. Neoliberals are not Progressives. They may embrace some Progressive ideals depending on the individual, but they are generally for the status quo.


Also, as a side note, progressive antiwar groups like Code Pink seemed to disappear as soon as Barack Obama was sworn into office. Yet American casualties continued to occur in Iraq and Afghanistan during Obama's two terms. Americans are still dying in Afghanistan in 2019, yet it's largely become a forgotten war to both the right and left.
Click to expand...

I did call out some of my liberal friends during the Obama Administration over the silence on Yemen and Libya, but since it was a Democrat in the White House and we were mostly managing wars the last guy started the fervor wore down. But if you look toward archived sources from Counterpunch, Truthdig, Truthout and Democracy Now you would see plenty of criticism of Obama's foreign policies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom