Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2016

The Goldman connection (a part of it, anyway):


Intercept

I get it: I disagree, therefore I am partisan. Great logic there. "I'm rubber, you're glue..."

No, I don't think so. Just to make the point, the difference is rather like the difference between the TEA Party and mainstream Republicans. Progressives, while nothing like the right wing lunatic fringe, tend to lean farther left than Liberals. I consider myself Progressive but the common sense side of me says that, at this time, a Liberal is better suited for the presidency. Hence my preference for Hillary. President Obama is not nearly as progressive as I would have liked, yet he made great strides. Hillary is not as progressive as I would like her to be, yet I expect to see the country swing farther left during her administration. At the very least we will get a more liberally biased Supreme Court which will pave the way for more politically progressive endeavors in the future. Efforts put forth by a more moderate president will stand a better chance of gaining traction in Congress than those of a progressive. Most of our Democratic congressmen and women are somewhat moderate. The president needs their support first and foremost. They are, unfortunately, beholden to the voters and beset by attacks from the right so it's not politically expedient for them to swing too far left if they want to keep their jobs. Even if they are really just a bunch of DINOs we need them as placeholders as we continue to wrest control of our government from the mindless ravages of the Right.

NW
Once again you are projecting. That we disagree about Ms. Clinton is obvious. But my arguments are based on her record and her actions. I disagree with her politics. That is not partisan, in fact, it is logic. And it is how I would hope people would think when choosing a candidate: if you agree with the candidate's politics you should support her/him. If not then you should seek an alternative. I believe the good reception that Bernie has had this cycle is a function of that: having a choice and expressing one's opinion about the candidates.
It worked wonders here in NY. Zephyr Teachout challenged Cuomo and even though we all knew she couldn't win we all turned out to vote for her. As a result, Cuomo has had to take a more progressive position on a whole host of issues.

So, if somebody loses money and has a Clinton connection, it is evidence of corruption? And if somebody makes money and has a Clinton connection it is evidence of corruption?

Seems like you are just going in with a belief that there is corruption and blaming any outcome on your belief.

Not so unusual for a hedge fund to lose money. They make some pretty scary bets sometimes.

I want whatever your smoking
It is evidence of a connection - that's what the article says- if you bother to read it.

Am I an ideologue too?
Here's my question, or questions:

If Bernie loses the nomination, as expected, do the rest of the Democratic Party supporters feel justified in telling the progressives to DROP DEAD?

Does that make his supporters illegitimate and most importantly, how does it make his positions on the issues illegitimate?
Because if any of the above is true, then it means that the Democratic Party HAS NO liberal wing anymore. So what does that make the party?
Neoconservative?
Neoliberal?
Diet GOP?

Here's what I want you to think about.
Bernie's supporters now total approximately 40-45% of the party. How is it beneficial to throw almost half the base under the bus?
How does that help anything?

Now, I do not feel that this is an ideologue position, it's a simple question of effectiveness. If we throw almost half the base under the bus, doesn't it become obvious that the remainder of the base will certainly do their utmost to prove that they are just as conservative as the Republicans? After all, once you erase the progressives, you're left with Blue Dogs (CONSERVATIVE Democrats) Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council minions and DINO's, the Joe Liebermans, the Max Baucuses, the Zell Millers, the Ben Nelsons and the Jim Webbs, who by the way are the kind of Democrats who walked away from OBAMA during the midterm elections thus HANDING both houses of Congress to the Republicans.

If that's ideology, then you better label it the ideology of survival because if that is the Democratic Party platform, then we really do have a one party system, and the term Democrat stands for absolutely nothing, it's just the less racist and less misogynistic version of the Republican Party.

Progressive positions are extremely relevant to the Democratic platform. If anything they are, like Bernie, just a little ahead of the times. There is a lot of political calculation at play here, Progressives want to jump in with both feet, make waves, and upset the apple cart. Liberals feel that things will work more smoothly if changes are made incrementally. Ultimately the goals are the same.

'
The present situation rather reminds me of 1964:

one candidate who might start a nuclear war and one candidate who definitely will start wars and keep the mayhem going on.
.

Really, Liberals do NOT want to throw the Progressives under the bus: They want to elect a President who will get changes (especially in the Supreme Court) that Progressives will like. They won't get the revolution, and they won't suddenly get to hunt down and barbeque the rich. But they will get a liberal Supreme Court for the next 30 years. They probably won't get single-payer for all, but they will get some movement towards it maybe including profit limits on Big Pharma. They won't get free college for everybody, but they will get some relief programs for student loans and some low-cost state colleges and universities for the qualified.

Why settle for the broken dream of changes that the American public will not support versus some changes that they will support? Politics is the Art of the Possible. Having dreams is great, but fixating on dreams that never come true is for losers.