• 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!

ABC News Amy Robach caught on hot mic complaining that ABC spiked Epstein-Clinton story in 2016

Absolutely not.

Many think (and for good reason) that Clinton's involvement with the man and his activities is precisely the reason that ABC and other mainstream LIBERAL media outlets chose to pass on reporting the story for so long. In ABC's case, the prevailing belief is that ABC spiked the story because of the negative impact it would have had on Hillary's presidential run.

If you have another theory as to why ABC News didn't air that interview, then I'm all ears. And please, don't bother with the "It didn't meet journalistic standards" bunk the network put out, because there are dozens of examples that blow that line of bull totally out of the water.

Absolutely not? Your first post AND this one are playing politics with it. These are not the droids you're looking for.

So why didn't they run the Epstein story AFTER Trump was elected? Is Hillary running again? Bill? They buried a story for several years after what "many people believe" was no longer relevant? Can you see why that makes no sense to me?

Maybe Prince Harry had M15 tell the ABC executives they'd find poison in their brandy if they ran the story. There's precisely the same amount of evidence of that being true as the conspiracy theory that "many" believe. No, this is about capitalism. News organization can run a story that will save women's lives and take down powerful scumbags. Doing so will cost them access to interviews, support and commentary from a lot of important, famous, wealthy people. I'm sure they believed the ends justified the means. Capitalism and morality are like church and state. And the theory you espouse will require an explanation as to why they continued to sit on it.
 
I said that CNN isn't a liberal news network, and I've pretty much proven that.

No, you haven't. You haven't even tried to prove it's not a "liberal" news network. You were trying to prove it's not a "progressive" news network. You even agreed with me on, or at least chose to not to argue, the point that "progressives" aren't "liberal." Do you wish to open that up?

You attempted to prove they aren't "progressive" by supplying 1-2 tidbits about various people, which don't even show they're not "progressive" by any definition, because a) some of the things you pointed out aren't obviously "unprogressive," and b) 1-2 things about anyone don't show the gestalt of what they are.

But of course point a) is why I asked you for your definition of "progressive," which you have pointedly and repeatedly refused to provide. Do you just not want to be pinned down to anything concrete so you can slip back and forth as needed?


PROVE IT.

Fine. I can't find definitive statements from them declaring themselves "progressive." I can find others calling them "progressive" (favorably).

Again, it comes down to your definition of "progressive" that you don't seem to want to provide.
 
So, apparently ABC got right to the bottom of all this -- not determining why the Epstein story was quashed, but determining which of its employees leaked the footage of Robach. They determined the employee now works for CBS news:

Scoop: ABC News/Epstein

Then, apparently, CBS fired him/her.

Yashar Ali �� on Twitter: "5. Update: Two sources familiar with the matter tell me that CBS News has fired the staffer in question. This comes after ABC informed CBS that they had determined who accessed the footage of Amy Robach expressing her frustrations about the Epstein story.
https://t.co/OHEoyahppY"


Blow a whistle against a viscerally hated President, and you're a hero who must be protected at all costs. Blow a whistle against the media quashing a story about a pedophile who runs a rape island, and you're ****ed.

THIS will REALLY inspire journalists to speak truth to power.

^^^^
It gets worse. The person in question that CBS fired -- Ashley Bianco -- wasn't even the person who "leaked" the footage of Robach. She simply had access to the footage -- and CBS fired her.

So, fathom that -- ABC mysteriously spikes what would be considered a major story in any sane world, finds someone who once had access to the footage which blows the whistle on it, tells (competitor!) CBS news about it, and and even though she's not the leaker, CBS fires her.

Meanwhile, ABC's venerated 20/20 program is hyping its new interviews with people involved in the Joey Buttafuoco gossip from 30 years ago. THAT'S apparently newsworthy. A billionaire pedophile running a rape island implicating people at the highest levels of everything not only wasn't, some poor low-level producer had to be fired from another news organization simply for being adjacent to the Robach clip.
 
No, you haven't. You haven't even tried to prove it's not a "liberal" news network. You were trying to prove it's not a "progressive" news network.

No, you put challenge before me without either proving they've called themselves progressive or qualifying why they should be considered progressive. I have never tried to define progressive because 'progressive' can be used by anyone from Jimmy Dore to Hillary Clinton. I've been consistent on that. An ideological progressive is generally identified as someone like AOC or Bernie Sanders, but the state of 'being progressive' can be used by Richard Nixon, who actually had progressive policies compared to Obama or the Clintons.

You even agreed with me on, or at least chose to not to argue, the point that "progressives" aren't "liberal." Do you wish to open that up?

Liberal is a definable ideology with set characteristics, progressive is less quantifiable. They are conflated because people who are liberal are generally progressive.

You attempted to prove they aren't "progressive" by supplying 1-2 tidbits about various people

What were you looking for? You want me to do homework to disprove YOUR assertion that they are progressive. And as we see below...

Fine. I can't find definitive statements from them declaring themselves "progressive."

You had no basis for assuming they are progressive in the first place. You just want to waste my time without putting skin in the game.
 
No, you put challenge before me without either proving they've called themselves progressive or qualifying why they should be considered progressive. I have never tried to define progressive because 'progressive' can be used by anyone from Jimmy Dore to Hillary Clinton. I've been consistent on that. An ideological progressive is generally identified as someone like AOC or Bernie Sanders, but the state of 'being progressive' can be used by Richard Nixon, who actually had progressive policies compared to Obama or the Clintons.

If it's so nebulous, then how can you say anyone isn't "progressive", including CNN? Yet, you did.



Liberal is a definable ideology with set characteristics, progressive is less quantifiable. They are conflated because people who are liberal are generally progressive.

Yes, liberal is a definable ideology, involving holding individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise, limited government, the rule of law dear.

You cannot say that people who identify with those things are "generally progressive" without giving a definition of "progressive," which you say you can't do.

You give examples of people who are "progressive," like Sanders and AOC, but they're both hostile to free enterprise; AOC and other "progressives" are hostile to various forms of free speech; other self-identified "progressives" (even here at DP!) are hostile to religious liberty, to gun rights, and man, are they hostile to limited government.

So, while they may be "progressive" -- whatever that means -- they're not very liberal.

If you can't define what "progressive" is, whether it's because you really can't or because you don't want to, then you can't say I'm wrong about that.



What were you looking for? You want me to do homework to disprove YOUR assertion that they are progressive. And as we see below...

That wasn't my assertion, as I've already said. My assertion was that they considered themselves "progressive." I've explained this a couple of times now.


You had no basis for assuming they are progressive in the first place.

Again, that isn't what I said.


You just want to waste my time without putting skin in the game.

No, I wanted you make your case.
 
If it's so nebulous, then how can you say anyone isn't "progressive", including CNN? Yet, you did.

Already explained.

Yes, liberal is a definable ideology, involving holding individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise, limited government, the rule of law dear.

You're using a variant of term relating to LIBERTARIANISM. Why are you using this definition? Are you actually unaware of the distinction? Pretty funny that you would try to school me on a definition and then turn around and face-plant on liberalism.
 
Already explained.

Nope.


You're using a variant of term relating to LIBERTARIANISM. Why are you using this definition? Are you actually unaware of the distinction? Pretty funny that you would try to school me on a definition and then turn around and face-plant on liberalism.

Incorrect. I'm using the actual definition of (political) liberalism.
 

I don't think you are equipped to understand what we're even talking about, as evidenced below.

Incorrect. I'm using the actual definition of (political) liberalism.

When someone says, 'CNN is a liberal network', they not referring to classical liberalism or libertarianism. I would invite you to Google before you respond next. I generally expect people to come into these discussions with a bare minimum of understanding of certain political / ideological concepts, but there's always the exception.
 
I don't think you are equipped to understand what we're even talking about, as evidenced below.

I do, very much so. The problem is, I understand it better than you'd like, and perhaps better than you're used to. And I think you know that, thus your extreme reluctance to define "progressive." You still haven't. Therefore, you can pretend it means pretty much anything you want, and it certainly leaves the term malleable enough for you slide it around as needed.

You can, of course, dispel that by having the cojones to define the term.


When someone says, 'CNN is a liberal network', they not referring to classical liberalism or libertarianism. I would invite you to Google before you respond next. I generally expect people to come into these discussions with a bare minimum of understanding of certain political / ideological concepts, but there's always the exception.

Again, the problem is, I understand it better than you'd like. I know what "liberal" means, and I've used it consistently.

One of the things I understand better than you'd like is that you want words to mean what you want them to mean. You certainly wouldn't acquiesce to a popular "understanding" of a word if you didn't think it's what the word means, or not how you want to use it. Case in point: your own use of the word "centrist." Also, your use of the word "socialist" as your lean.
 
I do, very much so. The problem is, I understand it better than you'd like, and perhaps better than you're used to. And I think you know that, thus your extreme reluctance to define "progressive." You still haven't.

Actually, I admitted quite readily that the term can be used flexibly. That's why I haven't defined the term, because I understand that anyone can self-identify as a progressive with equal credibility. Just as anyone can self-identify as a Christian, such as Mormons.

You can, of course, dispel that by having the cojones to define the term.

It's not about testicles, it's about understanding the flexibility of language, which apparently you don't comprehend. Can you define conservative? I'm willing to bet you can't, because there are like FIVE BRANCHES of conservatism within the Republican party alone. Progressive is an equally elusive term to define. Those most commonly identified as progressives tend to be very left-leaning economically, socially liberal, against corporatism and against neoconservatism. However, since anyone can self-identify, there's literally nothing I can say to disqualify Amy Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton.

Oooo, I feel so boxed in. You're such a rhetorical tactician. I'm not used to this level of pressure. *shudder*

Again, the problem is, I understand it better than you'd like. I know what "liberal" means, and I've used it consistently.

No, you think liberal is what YOU choose it to mean. You've selected a variant of liberal, which is actually classical liberal, and have based your argument on it. That's not my problem, that's your problem. You've limited yourself. Nothing to do with me.

One of the things I understand better than you'd like is that you want words to mean what you want them to mean.

Oh, the irony.

Case in point: your own use of the word "centrist."

I use the most popular definition of centrist: Economic moderate and/or socially moderate -- heavily leaning towards corporatism. Prove this definition wrong. Challenge delivered.

Also, your use of the word "socialist" as your lean.

What of it? Care to challenge me on it?
 


Pretty damning. For what it is worth, here is her (read: ABC Corporate's) response to the video:

View attachment 67267634

But note, she made this complaint fairly recently, stating that she had the Epstein story "for three years", and her story was based on an interview in 2015.

The issue here is that 1) The story was spiked at all, and 2) the story involving the Clintons was spiked during the 2016 election season.

While she claims that "nobody told her to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein"... well, duh. Hillary lost anyway.

Now somebody ask her what in her story did not meet ABC reporting standards... other than the obvious that it interfered with the chances of their preferred presidential candidate, that is.


Isn't a pedophile enabler almost as bad as a pedophile itself?
 
Isn't a pedophile enabler almost as bad as a pedophile itself?

it all depends on their usefulness to the Democrats, I guess. Or, at least, that is the MSM policy.

Also, ABC and CBS appear to have ruined the career of the wrong person in their zeal to destroy a whistleblower. :roll:
 
it all depends on their usefulness to the Democrats, I guess. Or, at least, that is the MSM policy.

Well, now that the Democrats and the MSM have merged into essentially the same entity . . . accurate.

Also, ABC and CBS appear to have ruined the career of the wrong person in their zeal to destroy a whistleblower. :roll:

Should make a nice wrongful dismissal law suit I think.

What was the quote that was going around recently? 'The news isn't the news anymore, it destroys some people, and elevates others . . . '?

Tried Google, but didn't find it again. Certainly seems to have the ring of truth around it, and probably has been applicable for a long time already, but its becoming rather blatant and hard to ignore now.
 
Actually, I admitted quite readily that the term can be used flexibly. That's why I haven't defined the term, because I understand that anyone can self-identify as a progressive with equal credibility. Just as anyone can self-identify as a Christian, such as Mormons.



It's not about testicles, it's about understanding the flexibility of language, which apparently you don't comprehend. Can you define conservative? I'm willing to bet you can't, because there are like FIVE BRANCHES of conservatism within the Republican party alone. Progressive is an equally elusive term to define. Those most commonly identified as progressives tend to be very left-leaning economically, socially liberal, against corporatism and against neoconservatism. However, since anyone can self-identify, there's literally nothing I can say to disqualify Amy Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton.

Oooo, I feel so boxed in. You're such a rhetorical tactician. I'm not used to this level of pressure. *shudder*

You think you're being clever here, but you're confirming what I said, that you said was ridiculous:

You can't say CNN isn't "progressive" if the definition of "progressive" is as "flexible" as you say.


No, you think liberal is what YOU choose it to mean. You've selected a variant of liberal, which is actually classical liberal, and have based your argument on it. That's not my problem, that's your problem. You've limited yourself. Nothing to do with me.

I "limited" myself? That's what you call going by the definition of a word?

Geez, tell me again how you're not purposely trying to keep the definitions of the words you use "flexible" so that you're not "limited" and it can mean whatever you need it to mean at any given time.

Thanks for giving up the game.


I use the most popular definition of centrist: Economic moderate and/or socially moderate -- heavily leaning towards corporatism.

Please. You said:

When someone says, 'CNN is a liberal network', they not referring to classical liberalism or libertarianism.

When "someone" says "centrist," they're not referring to "heavily leaning towards corporatism." Yet that's how you use it.

So you are violating the very thing you're trying to hang me on, which is, of course, entirely unsurprising.

Never mind that given everything else, who the hell knows what crazy thing your view of "moderate" is? Betcha it's not what most people think.


What of it? Care to challenge me on it?

Sure.

Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster

Socialism | Definition of Socialism at Dictionary.com

Socialism - definition of socialism by The Free Dictionary

A Definition of Socialism

socialism - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
 
You think you're being clever here, but you're confirming what I said, that you said was ridiculous:

You can't say CNN isn't "progressive" if the definition of "progressive" is as "flexible" as you say.

Sure I can. They do not fit what is a generally-agreed-upon usage of the word.


I "limited" myself? That's what you call going by the definition of a word?

Geez, tell me again how you're not purposely trying to keep the definitions of the words you use "flexible" so that you're not "limited" and it can mean whatever you need it to mean at any given time.

Thanks for giving up the game.

Do you understand the difference between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism? Seems that you don't, and only recognize one variant the term. This is you limiting yourself.


When "someone" says "centrist," they're not referring to "heavily leaning towards corporatism." Yet that's how you use it.

Then define it.

Never mind that given everything else, who the hell knows what crazy thing your view of "moderate" is? Betcha it's not what most people think.

Go ahead and define it for me.


What are you challenging me on? Listing definitions that you don't understand and haven't read are not a great challenge.
 
From Harshaw's own socialism definition menu:

"But in its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class."

"socialism achieved by voluntary sacrifice"

"concerning or belonging to the way of life and welfare of people in a community."

"Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."

I'll bet anything that Mr. Harshaw both hasn't read these variants of socialism, and upon reading them, will not recognize them -- even though they are straight from his own menu.
 
Sure I can. They do not fit what is a generally-agreed-upon usage of the word.

You just said there wasn't one.

If there's a "generally-agreed-upon usage of the word," then state it. God knows you've had ample opportunity over days and pages, but have steadfastly refused to do so.

You want it both ways.


Do you understand the difference between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism? Seems that you don't, and only recognize one variant the term. This is you limiting yourself.

I understand what the word "liberal" means in a political context. The thing is, most liberals, even in this modern era, will say they're for the things I mentioned.

"Progressives," of course, won't, but they're not liberals.


Then define it.

Centrism - Wikipedia

Centrism - definition of centrism by The Free Dictionary

nolan_chart.png


Nothing about "corporatist" in any of the commonly-accepted definitions. Yet that's how you use it. So yeah, physician, heal thyself.

Go ahead and define it for me.

Roughly the same as above. The problem you'll have, of course, is that you think the "center" is way to the left of what most people do. Illustration: you consider the Republicans a "far-right party," but they're basically the Democrats of 20 years ago, with some vestigial and milquetoast notions of lower taxes and gun rights.


What are you challenging me on? Listing definitions that you don't understand and haven't read are not a great challenge.

You'd like to think I don't understand those definitions, but I do.

Do you believe in common ownership of property and state control of the means of production? Because that's socialism.
 
From Harshaw's own socialism definition menu:

"But in its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class."

"socialism achieved by voluntary sacrifice"

"concerning or belonging to the way of life and welfare of people in a community."

"Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."

I'll bet anything that Mr. Harshaw both hasn't read these variants of socialism, and upon reading them, will not recognize them -- even though they are straight from his own menu.

See, you're continuing to do exactly what you're accusing me of. You're digging in and finding the "variants" you like, rather than the standard definitions.

You, of course, lose your bet. Anything, eh? I'll send you a list.
 
You just said there wasn't one.

No, I didn't. I said it's flexible, like conservatism.

If there's a "generally-agreed-upon usage of the word," then state it.

I already did. Recently. How about trying to read?

I understand what the word "liberal" means in a political context. The thing is, most liberals, even in this modern era, will say they're for the things I mentioned.

I'm trying really, really hard not to insult your intelligence, but you're making it increasingly difficult. I asked you a simple question: Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism. Are you capable of communicating with me on a basic level?


Are you seriously incapable of reading your own menu?

"Americans Elect, a coalition of American centrists funded by wealthy donors such as business magnate Michael Bloomberg, former junk-bond trader Peter Ackerman and hedge fund manager John H. Burbank III, launched an effort in mid-2011 to create a national "virtual primary" that would challenge the current two-party system. The group aims to nominate a presidential ticket of centrists with names that would be on ballots in all 50 states. The group banks on broad cultural dissatisfaction with the partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C. The Christian Science Monitor has stated that "the political climate couldn't be riper for a serious third-party alternative" such as their effort, but the "hurdles Americans Elect faces are daunting" to get on ballots.[49]

Journalist and political commentator E. J. Dionne wrote in his book Why Americans Hate Politics, published on the eve of the 1992 presidential election, that he believes American voters are looking for a "New Political Center" that intermixes "liberal instincts" and "conservative values". He labelled people in this centre position as "tolerant traditionalists". He described them as believers in conventional social morals that ensure family stability, as tolerant within reason to those who challenge those morals and as pragmatically supportive of government intervention in spheres such as education, child care and health care, as long as budgets are balanced.[51] [/quote]

...

"The Blue Dog Coalition, commonly known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify as fiscally conservative, centrist Democrats. The caucus professes an independence from leadership of both parties, and a mission of fiscal responsibility and promoting national defense."

...

"In the summer of 2009, The Economist newspaper said the following regarding the Blue Dog Coalition: “The debate over health care ... may be the pinnacle of the group’s power so far.” The Economist quoted Charlie Stenholm, a founding Blue Dog, as stating that “This is the first year for the new kennel in which their votes are really going to make a difference.”[15] In July 2009, Blue Dog members who were committee members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee successfully delayed the House vote on the Health Insurance Reform Bill (HR3200) until after the Summer Recess.[16][17] It was during this recess that the term ‘Obamacare’ was first derisively adopted by Republicans on Capitol Hill[18] It is widely proposed that Blue Dog opposition to the “public option” and this recess, with that summer’s contentious Town Hall meetings, provided the healthcare law’s Republican opponents the opportunity to attack and subsequently get the public option dropped from the original, pre-recess bill.[19][20]"

...

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of 2009 the top contributors to the New Democrat Coalition caucus members were the finance, insurance and real estate industries and in the two decades between 1989 and 2009 members of the New Democrat Coalition had collected $50 million from those industries.

You'd like to think I don't understand those definitions, but I do.

You have yet to prove it in even the barest capacity. Why are you even challenging me at this point? You are stumbling blinding through dictionary and Wikipedia links. Do you think I can't read what you link to?

Do you believe in common ownership of property and state control of the means of production? Because that's socialism.

I was sooo right.
 
See, you're continuing to do exactly what you're accusing me of. You're digging in and finding the "variants" you like, rather than the standard definitions.

You, of course, lose your bet. Anything, eh? I'll send you a list.

Well, clearly you don't understand how to use a dictionary.
 
No, I didn't. I said it's flexible, like conservatism.



I already did. Recently. How about trying to read?

Then quote yourself giving the definition.



I'm trying really, really hard not to insult your intelligence, but you're making it increasingly difficult. I asked you a simple question: Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism. Are you capable of communicating with me on a basic level?

I did. You apparently didn't understand the answer.


Are you seriously incapable of reading your own menu?

"Americans Elect, a coalition of American centrists funded by wealthy donors such as business magnate Michael Bloomberg, former junk-bond trader Peter Ackerman and hedge fund manager John H. Burbank III, launched an effort in mid-2011 to create a national "virtual primary" that would challenge the current two-party system. The group aims to nominate a presidential ticket of centrists with names that would be on ballots in all 50 states. The group banks on broad cultural dissatisfaction with the partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C. The Christian Science Monitor has stated that "the political climate couldn't be riper for a serious third-party alternative" such as their effort, but the "hurdles Americans Elect faces are daunting" to get on ballots.[49]

Journalist and political commentator E. J. Dionne wrote in his book Why Americans Hate Politics, published on the eve of the 1992 presidential election, that he believes American voters are looking for a "New Political Center" that intermixes "liberal instincts" and "conservative values". He labelled people in this centre position as "tolerant traditionalists". He described them as believers in conventional social morals that ensure family stability, as tolerant within reason to those who challenge those morals and as pragmatically supportive of government intervention in spheres such as education, child care and health care, as long as budgets are balanced.[51]

...

"The Blue Dog Coalition, commonly known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify as fiscally conservative, centrist Democrats. The caucus professes an independence from leadership of both parties, and a mission of fiscal responsibility and promoting national defense."

...

"In the summer of 2009, The Economist newspaper said the following regarding the Blue Dog Coalition: “The debate over health care ... may be the pinnacle of the group’s power so far.” The Economist quoted Charlie Stenholm, a founding Blue Dog, as stating that “This is the first year for the new kennel in which their votes are really going to make a difference.”[15] In July 2009, Blue Dog members who were committee members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee successfully delayed the House vote on the Health Insurance Reform Bill (HR3200) until after the Summer Recess.[16][17] It was during this recess that the term ‘Obamacare’ was first derisively adopted by Republicans on Capitol Hill[18] It is widely proposed that Blue Dog opposition to the “public option” and this recess, with that summer’s contentious Town Hall meetings, provided the healthcare law’s Republican opponents the opportunity to attack and subsequently get the public option dropped from the original, pre-recess bill.[19][20]"

...

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of 2009 the top contributors to the New Democrat Coalition caucus members were the finance, insurance and real estate industries and in the two decades between 1989 and 2009 members of the New Democrat Coalition had collected $50 million from those industries.

I'm sorry; where exactly does that say the definition of "centrist" includes "corporatist"? You're not making leaps, you're pole-vaulting.


You have yet to prove it in even the barest capacity. Why are you even challenging me at this point? You are stumbling blinding through dictionary and Wikipedia links. Do you think I can't read what you link to?

I'm stating definitions and giving sources for them, something you've almost entirely steadfastly refused to do.


I was sooo right.

I'm sure that's what you tell yourself.
 
Well, clearly you don't understand how to use a dictionary.

There's not a thing you've said which makes that case in the slightest. Sustained litanies of personal attacks certainly don't get that job done.
 
Then quote yourself giving the definition.

"Those most commonly identified as progressives tend to be very left-leaning economically, socially liberal, against corporatism and against neoconservatism."

I'll go you further:

"The progressive movement emerged in the 1890s and included intellectual reformers typified by sociologist Lester Frank Ward and economist Richard T. Ely.[47] They transformed Victorian liberalism, retaining its commitment to civil liberties and individual rights while casting off its advocacy of laissez-faire economics. Ward helped define what would become the modern welfare state after 1933.[48] These often supported the growing working-class labor unions and sometimes even the socialists to their left. The Social Gospel movement was a Protestant intellectual movement that helped shape liberalism especially from the 1890s to the 1920s. It applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, unclean environment, child labor, inadequate labor unions, poor schools and the danger of war."

...

"In 1900–1920, liberals called themselves progressives. They rallied behind Republicans led by Theodore Roosevelt and Robert M. La Follette as well as Democrats led by William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson to fight corruption, waste and big trusts (monopolies). They stressed ideals of social justice and the use of government to solve social and economic problems. Settlement workers such as Jane Addams were leaders of the liberal tradition.[52] There was a tension between sympathy with labor unions and the goal to apply scientific expertise by disinterested experts. When liberals became anti-Communist in the 1940s, they purged leftists from the liberal movement.[53]"


I did. You apparently didn't understand the answer.

No, you excluded and refused to recognize definitions which opposed your singular definition. Again, you don't seem to understand these basic concepts, and are not motivated in trying to understand them. Let me make it easy for you:

Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia

"Modern liberalism in the United States is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy."

...

"The American modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care and welfare. Important social issues during the first part of the 21st century include economic inequality (wealth and income),[5] voting rights for minorities,[6] affirmative action,[7] reproductive and other women's rights,[8] support for LGBT rights[9][10] and immigration reform.[11][12]"

...

Modern liberalism took shape during the 20th century, with roots in Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. American liberals oppose conservatives on most but not all issues. Modern liberalism is historically related to social liberalism and progressivism, although the current relationship between liberal and progressive viewpoints is debated.

Get it now? Or rather, what DON'T you get?

I'm sorry; where exactly does that say the definition of "centrist" includes "corporatist"? You're not making leaps, you're pole-vaulting.

Perhaps I went over your head. To borrow from Colbert, if someone is stabbing you with a knife and ultimately kills you, they don't have to scream, 'Murder! Murder! Murder!' in order for it to be murder.

The point in my quotes, borrowed from your links, is that billionaires and millionaires, and those who take money from such, are heavily invested in virtually every brand of American centrism. That's the point. Do you get it now?

I'm stating definitions and giving sources for them, something you've almost entirely steadfastly refused to do.

No, you link to definitions, and when these links are used to your disadvantage, you flatly claim that nothing but your variant of the definition is applicable. You've done this repeatedly throughout our so-called discussion. I challenged you several times, and I'll do it again: What is the difference between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism? Which is the most commonly recognized version used by non-Libertarians?

I'm sure that's what you tell yourself.

Not that my ego is invested in our exchange, but I'm dragging you and you don't realize it.
 
There's not a thing you've said which makes that case in the slightest. Sustained litanies of personal attacks certainly don't get that job done.

Pulling proper and acceptable MODERN usages of definitions from your links is the fairest thing I can do, and at some point you not recognizing this is not a personal attack but a plain observation.
 
Back
Top Bottom