• 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!

Is Hillary done?

Surrealistik said:
Please don't try to conflate FDR to New Democrat hijackers of the party; they are absolutely not even remotely comparable. FDR was despised by powerful, monied interests of the time relative to immense popularity with the people furthermore, which is typically a reliable confirmation of doing something right.

Also which 'progressives' was he criticized by at the time? Literal communists?
Click to expand...

George Creel for one.

My advice: read Michael McGerr's A fierce discontent: the rise and fall of the progressive movement, 1870-1920 and you get a new perspective about the progressive s
 
Hillary's done, she and some of the poor slobs in the DNC hierarchy just refuse to admit it. She needs to just fade away in obscurity where she belongs and let someone without White Collar crime connections give the Prez run a shot.
 
since our choices are artificially limited to a comic book bad guy party and another party that can't seem to find its ass with both hands and a flashlight, the Democrats owe it to all Americans to run a candidate who can win in 2020. the stakes are just too high. i would recommend someone younger so that the college kids can be bothered to give a ****. also, think about the last time that the more entertaining candidate didn't win. Bush I, maybe? you'd have to go back decades before that to find the next example.

good rules of thumb :

1. no unappealing legacy candidates
2. must be entertaining. this is a reality TV popularity contest, and the high school rules still apply, unfortunately.

given the stakes, the Democrats should already be down to a few really good choices for 2020, and as far as i know, they aren't. it's like showing up to a gunfight with a rubber chicken. i hope that they surprise me with something, like a clearly defined message and a good candidate to pitch it.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
George Creel for one.

My advice: read Michael McGerr's A fierce discontent: the rise and fall of the progressive movement, 1870-1920 and you get a new perspective about the progressive s
Click to expand...

You mean the book that hilariously identifies prohibition as a progressive idea?

By the way, I don't think FDR was perfect by any means; I greatly respect the man as one of the best, if not the best president in history (it's him or Lincoln), but I recognize that in terms of progressivism he came up short in some areas and undertook things that were abominable like the internment camps. Nonetheless he did enact grand, sweeping and revolutionary changes that were for the better.

That having been said, neither his flaws nor the fact that he was not at the absolute frontiers of progressivism do not even remotely begin to justify New Democrat subversion of the party, and the rightward/corporatist trajectory in which they took it and continue attempting to take it. He is again not at all comparable to the likes of Clinton or Kamala Harris.
 
Last edited:
The political scientists out there are trying to fix Hillary as a candidate. The Dems got to get there **** together and fast. They need a shining light. Trump and the Republicans are on track to pick up votes, not lose them. He's like a hurricane. You don't know where he will make landfall but he will still be a hurricane.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Surrealistik said:
You mean the book that hilariously identifies prohibition as a progressive idea?

By the way, I don't think FDR was perfect by any means; I greatly respect the man as one of the best, if not the best president in history, but I recognize that in terms of progressivism he came up short in some areas and undertook things that were abominable like the internment camps. Nonetheless he did enact grand, sweeping and revolutionary changes that were for the better.

That having been said, neither his flaws nor the fact that he was not at the absolute frontiers of progressivism do not even remotely begin to justify New Democrat subversion of the party, and the rightward/corporatist trajectory in which they took it and continue attempting to take it. He is again at all not comparable to the likes of Clinton or Kamala Harris.
Click to expand...

At its core, prohibition was a progressive initiative, it sought to transform society and make it conform with the middle class values of the progressive reformers.

And I am also a fan of FDR, but I am also a fan of Jerry brown, pat brown, Barbra boxer, and Kamala Harris.

Democrats believe that government has a elected duty to protect the people that elects them.
 
Helix said:
i would recommend someone younger so that the college kids can be bothered to give a ****.
Click to expand...

Maybe they can flip that millennial GOP Congressman who had to resign in disgrace for defrauding the taxpayers. The one with the Downton Abbey office. He seemed fun!
 
Dirt Sands said:
The political scientists out there are trying to fix Hillary as a candidate. The Dems got to get there **** together and fast. They need a shining light. Trump and the Republicans are on track to pick up votes, not lose them. He's like a hurricane. You don't know where he will make landfall but he will still be a hurricane.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why do we need to have the democrats have a leader or a public face right now? The republicans didn't need one during the obama presidency.

And in what sense are republicans gaining votes? Their agenda has stalled and they constantly have to deal with trump's outbursts like firemen dousing a ronson lighter.
 
Greenbeard said:
Maybe they can flip that millennial GOP Congressman who had to resign in disgrace for defrauding the taxpayers. The one with the Downton Abbey office. He seemed fun!
Click to expand...

oh yeah, i remember that guy. that was a WTF moment.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
At its core, prohibition was a progressive initiative, it sought to transform society and make it conform with the middle class values of the progressive reformers.
Click to expand...

There is nothing progressive about prohibition; the very idea is anathema to progressivism which aims to minimize statutory constraints to lifestyle choices and opposes using law as a bludgeon to impose values; we and the libertarians are on the forefront of the battle to legalize marijuana and oppose the war on drugs (where we and libertarians disagree is on matters of economics and economic justice). That is progressivism.

And I am also a fan of FDR, but I am also a fan of Jerry brown, pat brown, Barbra boxer, and Kamala Harris.

Democrats believe that government has a elected duty to protect the people that elects them.
Click to expand...

Progressivism != shirking the duty to see to the defense of the country. Corporatism != protecting people.

If you're a fan of FDR and his politics, but prefer Hillary to Sanders as you seem to, then evidently you must ultimately agree more with the New Democrats who have gone in a very different, and in some ways even diametrically opposite direction relative to his paradigm shift.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why do we need to have the democrats have a leader or a public face right now? The republicans didn't need one during the obama presidency.

And in what sense are republicans gaining votes? Their agenda has stalled and they constantly have to deal with trump's outbursts like firemen dousing a ronson lighter.
Click to expand...
We have entered into a new election driven governing cycle. Dems have to seriously get there name out there. The winning candidate has to start now. The ones that are forming exploratory committees will not be president. Like you said, Trump started late. But he was a celebrity. The closest to that statis is Bernie,. But he is too old, among other things.

He's not losing support. As he divides the country, people will be forced to take sides. And they are. You would think that each crazy thing he does would cause him to lose votes. But it doesn't. Remember the "grab her by the p_#$&+ comment?
Also, think of all the unbelievably favorable Trump comments just on this website.

The Dems in the field now don't stand a chance.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Surrealistik said:
There is nothing progressive about prohibition; the very idea is anathema to progressivism which aims to minimize statutory constraints to lifestyle choices and opposes using law as a bludgeon to impose values; we and the libertarians are on the forefront of the battle to legalize marijuana and oppose the war on drugs (where we and libertarians disagree is on matters of economics and economic justice). That is progressivism.



Progressivism != shirking the duty to see to the defense of the country. Corporatism != protecting people.

If you're a fan of FDR and his politics, then evidently you must ultimately agree more with the New Democrats who have gone in a very different direction relative to his paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

The progressive movement at its core was all about imposing social values on American society, the values of progressive reformers.

I have read Michael McGerr's book and it essentially argues that the progressive movement was a radical political movement that sought transform american society into a middle class utopia.

The goals and ambitions of the progressive movement came into conflict with the ideology of individualism because many of the issues that progressive fought againist---corruption in government, the unrestrained effects of corporatism, the vices of alcoholand prostitution, and class conflict--- was the result of excessive individualism.

The issue of alcohol was a progressive issue because progressives considered the overconsumption of alcohol to be a vice, and the progressives argued that the saloon was a plauge upon societybecause men went to saloons to get themselves drunk and partake in the services of prostitutes and when they returned home they abused their wives. Prohibition was a progressive cause, because progressives argued that alcohol was a vice that led to selfishness and harm to society.

You yourself stated you are a libertarian, a political ideology that supports individual rights as a cause. Doesn't that conflict with the progressive movements values, the transformation of society and their opposition to individualism?
 
Dirt Sands said:
We have entered into a new election driven governing cycle. Dems have to seriously get there name out there. The winning candidate has to start now. The ones that are forming exploratory committees will not be president. Like you said, Trump started late. But he was a celebrity. The closest to that statis is Bernie,. But he is too old, among other things.

He's not losing support. As he divides the country, people will be forced to take sides. And they are. You would think that each crazy thing he does would cause him to lose votes. But it doesn't. Remember the "grab her by the p_#$&+ comment?
Also, think of all the unbelievably favorable Trump comments just on this website.

The Dems in the field now don't stand a chance.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Name three thing that this republican administration has accomplished as part of their agenda.
 
Dirt Sands said:
Who will be the Democratic nominee for POTUS? I get a strange feeling it could be Hillary again. I don't see a successful challenge from the left. The opposite of Trump isn't a liberal, it's a pragmatist. Is there a better pragmatic candidate than Hillary?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

She'd be crazy to put herself through that again. But, ya never know.

She would probably win though if the election was held today.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The progressive movement at its core was all about imposing social values on American society, the values of progressive reformers.

I have read Michael McGerr's book and it essentially argues that the progressive movement was a radical political movement that sought transform american society into a middle class utopia.

The goals and ambitions of the progressive movement came into conflict with the ideology of individualism because many of the issues that progressive fought againist---corruption in government, the unrestrained effects of corporatism, the vices of alcoholand prostitution, and class conflict--- was the result of excessive individualism.

The issue of alcohol was a progressive issue because progressives considered the overconsumption of alcohol to be a vice, and the progressives argued that the saloon was a plauge upon societybecause men went to saloons to get themselves drunk and partake in the services of prostitutes and when they returned home they abused their wives. Prohibition was a progressive cause, because progressives argued that alcohol was a vice that led to selfishness and harm to society.
Click to expand...

Michael McGerr's observations are thoroughly coloured with a right leaning bias flirting with slander, and/or presume a definition of progressivism that isn't at all comparable with what it means today. In any event, I find it absolutely absurd to identify a movement predominantly rooted in Christian conservatism and morality with the progressive movement. Progressivism isn't simply a purveyor of change and transformer of society, but qualified change that aims to maximize individual liberties and lifestyle choice, including in matters of the economy save where necessity and general social good demands (libertarians take that further and either shirk all economic regulation or support only the absolute minimum); the same movement that as stated, leads the attack on the asinine, counterproductive war on drugs, and seeks to legalize marijuana. To call prohibition a product of progressivism is to engage in gross misattribution, willful or otherwise.

You yourself stated you are a libertarian, a political ideology that supports individual rights as a cause. Doesn't that conflict with the progressive movements values, the transformation of society and their opposition to individualism?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I have never identified myself as a libertarian (which without qualifiers usually evokes the ugly right strain of it by default); left libertarian cleaves pretty close, but if I had to apply any specific label, it would be social democrat.

Anyways, getting back to the point, Kamala Harris is unacceptable as a candidate for the FDR/Bernie wing for all the very legitimate reasons mentioned in those articles as the establishment NDs are already beginning to discover. I have my doubts as to whether that's enough to get them to shift gears; they and their mouthpieces are already firing back, resorting to their old bull**** standby slanders of 'Berniebro' and misogyny. If they were/are looking for a true compromise candidate with strong party loyalty who might be able to unify both sides of the party, they should back Elizabeth Warren. I have my doubts and misgivings about her in the wake of the Dem primaries, but I could at least get behind the woman with some enthusiasm.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Michael McGerr's observations are thoroughly coloured with a right leaning bias flirting with slander, and/or presume a definition of progressivism that isn't at all comparable with what it means today. In any event, I find it absolutely absurd to identify a movement predominantly rooted in Christian conservatism and morality with the progressive movement. Progressivism isn't simply a purveyor of change and transformer of society, but qualified change that aims to maximize individual liberties and lifestyle choice, including in matters of the economy save where necessity and general social good demands (libertarians take that further and either shirk all economic regulation or support only the absolute minimum); the same movement that as stated, leads the attack on the asinine, counterproductive war on drugs, and seeks to legalize marijuana. To call prohibition a product of progressivism is to engage in gross misattribution, willful or otherwise.



Not at all. I have never identified myself as a libertarian (which without qualifiers usually evokes the ugly right strain of it by default); left libertarian cleaves pretty close, but if I had to apply any specific label, it would be social democrat.

Anyways, getting back to the point, Kamala Harris is unacceptable as a candidate for the FDR/Bernie wing for all the very legitimate reasons mentioned in those articles as the establishment NDs are already beginning to discover. I have my doubts as to whether that's enough to get them to shift gears; they and their mouthpieces are already firing back, resorting to their old bull**** standby slanders of 'Berniebro' and misogyny. If they were/are looking for a true compromise candidate with strong party loyalty who might be able to unify both sides of the party, they should back Elizabeth Warren. I have my doubts and misgivings about her in the wake of the Dem primaries, but I could at least get behind the woman with some enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

I admit my error in calling you a libertarian, you were making a comparison beween progressivism to the libertarian cause.

As to Michael McGerrs thesis, I think it is precisely the fact that progressivism had roots in Protestant Christianity that it became a reform movement. The progressive reformers were the middle class of America who were worried that the Victorian era values were getting corrupted by the power of the interest groups.

If you oppose Michael McGerr's interpretation of the progressive movement, would you prefer Richard Hofstadters the American political Tradition or the age of reform?

Perhaps you would like Samuel hays The response to industrialism?

Or Walter Nugent's progressivism: a very short introduction?
 
faithful_servant said:
It's guaranteed that Clinton will run again and her whole platform will be "I'm not Trump." The Dems. will make sure that there are NO challengers to her in the primaries, so that she can focus on her anti-Trump campaign from the very start. She won't have a platform other than doing the opposite of anything that Pres. has done. It was how Pres. Obama got elected (he ran an "I'm not Bush." campaign). It's sad that the only way a Dem POTUS candidate has chance of getting elected is by who they aren't and not by who they are.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. It's very hard to defend her as a candidate. What was her campaign about? What was her slogan? What was her platform about? What was her vision? How was she going to make America great? I was a precinct Hillary delegate and I was on Hillary Cruz control. The problem was, so was she. A textbook case on how to lose.

Please, great politicians, come forth and make yourself known! Somebody, please.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Dirt Sands said:
I agree with you. It's very hard to defend her as a candidate. What was her campaign about? What was her slogan? What was her platform about? What was her vision? How was she going to make America great? I was a precinct Hillary delegate and I was on Hillary Cruz control. The problem was, so was she. A textbook case on how to lose.
Click to expand...

You were a delegate and don't know what her platform was? If you're looking for the problem with our political process, perhaps you're in need of a mirror.
 
Greenbeard said:
You were a delegate and don't know what her platform was? If you're looking for the problem with our political process, perhaps you're in need of a mirror.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm a Hillary genious. I know inmate (somewhat) things about her you can't Google. My point was that, generally people did not know what she stood for. That knew what she was against. The slogan for her should have been "Unleash Hillary. She's too calculating and lacks political instincts. I was wrong about her in one regard, I thought she was a politician but she was not. She would have been a great POTUS, but was a bad candidate.

I don't know her platform...please!

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Greenbeard said:
You were a delegate and don't know what her platform was? If you're looking for the problem with our political process, perhaps you're in need of a mirror.
Click to expand...
Politics is alot more than platforms. The proof is that she lost.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Dirt Sands said:
Dude, I'm a Hillary genious. I know inmate (somewhat) things about her you can't Google. My point was that, generally people did not know what she stood for.
Click to expand...

You literally just said:

What was her platform about? What was her vision? How was she going to make America great?
Click to expand...

Now I see! You knew but "people" didn't.
 
Greenbeard said:
You literally just said:



Now I see! You knew but "people" didn't.
Click to expand...
Quoting me is a great debating tool. I knew her platform. Those are the questions people would ask before the give up their vote. She ran a horrible campaign. What did she stand for? You see, I just did it again. I know what she stands for but others do not.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom