• 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!

Food for thought for Liberals and Progressives

KevinKohler said:
They will.

You gotta remember, our president is more a figurehead, than an actual doer.
Click to expand...

Let's hope the "Freedom Caucus" doesn't get any more influence or you may eat those words.
 
Ikari said:
The GOP is going to have to work hard because a Trump Presidency might end up being horribly damaging to the GOP brand if it gets too out of hand.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it can.

Trump mocked a disabled person
Called POW's losers.
Called for a ban on all Muslims entering the country.
Made racist comments about a judge
Tweeted that we should all watch a porn video that didn't exist of a former beauty pageant winner at 3am.

To name a few, and the American people went "ok".
 
Jetboogieman said:
To name a few, and the American people went "ok".
Click to expand...

That's because we've convinced ourselves we must vote Republocrat, we can't consider third party, and the other side of that Republocrat coin was Clinton. I firmly believe Sanders would not have lost.
 
csbrown28 said:
By rejection you mean, the Liberal canidate who won the popular vote?

I accept that the Left's candidate lost, but not sure it rises to the level of outright "rejection".
Click to expand...

It takes more than winning population centers on East and West Coast for any claim of the popular vote to have meaning. A look at the map of the country and the overwhelming red glow should be sufficient to appreciate that.

Add in maintaining control Republican control of Congress, and the message voters sent is quite clear.
 
Ikari said:
I guess hillary was a liberal in the sense that the word means democrat. But socialist progressivism? I don't think so. Corporate Clinton wasn't about progressive, particularly socialist progressive, structures. That was Sanders and I do think that if the DNC had not rigged their elections to make Hillary win, that Sanders would have won easily as he too is viewed as an outsider.

I think this was backlash against Hillary because America just doesn't like her, doesn't trust her, can't stand being around her. And also I think this is backlash against the establishment and how deaf Washington and all the Corporate Republocrats have become to the People.

Now, I don't think Trump is the solution to any of this, but I would say it's more aimed at Clinton and the status quo establishment than it is against "socialist progressivism".
Click to expand...

I keep reading people trying to deny her Progressive credentials, but the evidence is there for all to see.

One of her largest benefactors was George Soro's arguably the power behind the Progressive Movement. Add in the support of other well known Progressives and it's very clear where Hillary tied her ambitions to.
 
ocean515 said:
It takes more than winning population centers on East and West Coast for any claim of the popular vote to have meaning. A look at the map of the country and the overwhelming red glow should be sufficient to appreciate that.

Add in maintaining control Republican control of Congress, and the message voters sent is quite clear.
Click to expand...

Come on Ocean, either you think I'm stupid or you are.....

You mean this map that adjusts for population density?

statepopredblue1024.png
 
Ikari said:
It's not the end of the world, or not any more so than it would have been otherwise. Hillary was only infinitesimally better than Trump. But this will be embarrassing, he's going to be a nut job on the international front.
Click to expand...

I bet foreign relations are gonna be a nightmare.
 
ocean515 said:
I keep reading people trying to deny her Progressive credentials, but the evidence is there for all to see.

One of her largest benefactors was George Soro's arguably the power behind the Progressive Movement. Add in the support of other well known Progressives and it's very clear where Hillary tied her ambitions to.
Click to expand...

She'll take money from anyone, but in the end she is just part of the Corporate, status quo Republocrat aristocracy.
 
Ikari said:
She'll take money from anyone, but in the end she is just part of the Corporate, status quo Republocrat aristocracy.
Click to expand...

Well sure, self enrichment has been her obsession.

But her progressive credentials regarding education, government, and globalism are well established. Her subservience to George Soro's cements her ideological beliefs.
 
ocean515 said:
Well sure, self enrichment has been her obsession.

But her progressive credentials regarding education, government, and globalism are well established. Her subservience to George Soro's cements her ideological beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't see it, everything she did was for Party Power, her Power, the power of the Corporations that support her. She played lip, she talked a game, but in the end, she is status quo. If you want a progressive socialist of sorts, you need Sanders. Clinton and Sanders are radically different.
 
Ikari said:
I don't see it, everything she did was for Party Power, her Power, the power of the Corporations that support her. She played lip, she talked a game, but in the end, she is status quo. If you want a progressive socialist of sorts, you need Sanders. Clinton and Sanders are radically different.
Click to expand...

I guess if one applies all sorts of subjective standards and reasoning, anything can be suggested.

I'm simply looking at the primary benefactors who purchased her support, and they are the biggest global Progressives on the planet. Given the massive investment they made, there is no way she would be allowed to side step their expectations and agenda.

With that connection secured, and considering how certain she and her MSM partners were of victory, it's difficult to conclude her Progressive bonafides are not securely in place.
 
Ikari said:
It's not the end of the world, or not any more so than it would have been otherwise. Hillary was only infinitesimally better than Trump. But this will be embarrassing, he's going to be a nut job on the international front.
Click to expand...

You said he couldn't win, too. A lot of peoples's prediction credibility went down the toilet last night and have a long come back road.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The true test here is of American institutions themselves and whether they can reign in Trumps worst impulses.
Click to expand...

We put an end, at least temporarily, to the Left's worst impulses. That's a win for free people everywhere.
 
ocean515 said:
I guess if one applies all sorts of subjective standards and reasoning, anything can be suggested.

I'm simply looking at the primary benefactors who purchased her support, and they are the biggest global Progressives on the planet. Given the massive investment they made, there is no way she would be allowed to side step their expectations and agenda.

With that connection secured, and considering how certain she and her MSM partners were of victory, it's difficult to conclude her Progressive bonafides are not securely in place.
Click to expand...

I think side-stepping and avoiding consequences is pretty much the Clinton's bread-and-butter. I don't know, I wouldn't really call her much of a progressive, particularly not a socialist progressive, because she's no Bernie Sanders, and that's what democratic socialism actually looks like.
 
apdst said:
You said he couldn't win, too. A lot of peoples's prediction credibility went down the toilet last night and have a long come back road.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did, but I've seen how Trump reacts to being challenged in the public light. He's a man-child who lashes out, and he'll do that on in the international game as well. That's a measured system.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah I did, but I've seen how Trump reacts to being challenged in the public light. He's a man-child who lashes out, and he'll do that on in the international game as well. That's a measured system.
Click to expand...

You've been wrong about everything up til now. Why are you right, all of a sudden?
 
Ikari said:
I think side-stepping and avoiding consequences is pretty much the Clinton's bread-and-butter. I don't know, I wouldn't really call her much of a progressive, particularly not a socialist progressive, because she's no Bernie Sanders, and that's what democratic socialism actually looks like.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm no expert on ideological definitions. It seems to me these labels and what they mean change as often as the weather.

What I look at is affiliations and stated goals and agendas.
 
ocean515 said:
The map shows who won and where. Excuses and spin are meaningless.
Click to expand...

And trying to make it seem as though geographical boundaries = representation of the actual people that live there. Equally meaningless.
 
apdst said:
You've been wrong about everything up til now. Why are you right, all of a sudden?
Click to expand...

For all the same reasons that you opposed Hillary. You expect that their past behavior will be the same as their future behavior.
 
csbrown28 said:
And trying to make it seem as though geographical boundaries = representation of the actual people that live there. Equally meaningless.
Click to expand...

In terms of the Federal Government, geographical boundaries do define representation. Claiming they don't is a departure from reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom