Democratic Voters Are Done with Party Centrists—and the Progressives Are a Majority

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
KillerIndica said:
Good sig line.
Click to expand...
So, how many do you want to murder, kkkomrade? Every Democrat who didn't vote for Sanders? That would be most of the black and Hispanic voters in this country. The alt.right will furnish you with the death camps. I'm sure they could be built with excess material from Trump's wall. White identity politics are hot right now. I bet you could get some donations from including the Trumps.
 
dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Obama was a right winger?

The article just rehashed a lot of stuff that's been discussed here for years. The premise is, 52% of the party who want it to go farther left should decide everything. The 48% who don't, what about them? Where do they live? Are they living in conservative states? Do you think the Democratic party can take back congress by going farther left than the people in those states want? Each state selects its own representation. What plays well in California isn't going to do well in Michigan or Wisconsin, where there are a lot of more moderate Democrats and the states themselves are conservative..

You aren't communist or even very far left if you are a Sanders supporter. Sanders isn't even centrist when it comes to social justice, in that regard, he's a conservative. What you are is another fucking authoritarian lefty who mistakes the volume of voice for a powerful idea.
Click to expand...


(Respect)
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Oh no, you demonstrate quite clearly that authoritarians can be on the left. Authoritarian is just an autocratic attitude toward central authority and can be just as obnoxious whether the program is socialized economy or capitalist. You and others demand your way or the highway. Killer Indica promotes wholesale murder. He's a Sanders supporter too. Rather than accept that each state should elect whomever they want, you guys demand every Democrat sign pledges to refuse legal campaign contributions. Rather than be happy that Sanders mediocre health care bill received the most co-sponsors ever, your gang demands leaders such as Pelosi resign because she differed with Sanders approach. The bill isn' even finished and you demand fealty.. How authoritarian is that?

Obama wasn't conservative you idiot. Socializing health care as Sanders plans to do isn't centrist either. Do you even read what you write?
Click to expand...
Now you have me and Buck mixed up; I'm not claiming 'my way or the highway', my claim is 'after 40 years of an increasingly ineffectual and unresponsive Democratic Party, it's high time to try something different'.

There is a difference and it might be enlightening for you to ponder on it for awhile.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Now you have me and Buck mixed up; I'm not claiming 'my way out the biggest', my claim is 'after 40 years of an increasingly ineffectual and unresponsive Democratic Party, it's high time to try something different'.

There is a difference and it might be enlightening for you to ponder on it for awhile.
Click to expand...
no, your inflexible demands are authoritarian in nature. I gave plenty of examples of your demands on others to establish my point that you are authoritarian. Read my post. It contains examples. Refute them, don't just say nuh uh.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
You were about 14-15 when Ronald ran for POTUS. Please do tell how Reagan and Obama are the same.
Did you misunderstand his quote when he stated that his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.
Serious guy stay away from politics. You are pretty ignorant to this.
Click to expand...

Start at 3:00 and Mr Obama will tell you himself by 3:30.

And it's 'ignorant about this', genius.

Rest assured, I'm not going anywhere. Someone has to provide a counterpoint to the great unwashed, uneducated and grammatically challenged.
 
travisw

travisw

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:

Start at 3:00 and Mr Obama will tell you himself by 3:30.

And it's 'ignorant about this', genius.

Rest assured, I'm not going anywhere. Someone has to provide a counterpoint to the great unwashed, uneducated and grammatically challenged.
Click to expand...


So you have so little appreciation for the nuances of speech, you think that after years of being accused of being a socialist,by Republicans, him saying 30 years ago his policies would have been considered Republican, is him actually saying he's Republican?

This has got to be a troll, nobody is that fucking stupid.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
travisw said:


So you have so little appreciation for the nuances of speech, you think that after years of being accused of being a socialist,by Republicans, him saying 30 years ago his policies would have been considered Republican, is him actually saying he's Republican?

This has got to be a troll, nobody is that fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
If you think it's just semantics, have a look at his record:

Labor Unions? No help.
Homeowners? On the street.
Banksters? Record profits.
Income inequality? Worse.
Wars? Up! From 2 to 7.
Defense spending? Also Up.
Drone strikes? Ohh yeah...

But hey- he did stick up for gays in the military!
 
Last edited:
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
If you think it's just semantics, have a look at his record:

Labor Unions? No help.
Homeowners? On the street.
Banksters? Record profits.
Income inequality? Worse.
Wars? Up! From 2 to 7.
Defense spending? Also Up.
Drone strikes? Ohh yeah...

But hey- he did stick up for gays in the military!
Click to expand...
It's hardly surprising that Bernie cucks keep ignoring the Republicans and attacking Democrats.

Especially Obama, your little group of racists can't help but attack the black man who did a tremendous job with the cards he was dealt.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
It's hardly surprising that Bernie cucks keep ignoring the Republicans and attacking Democrats.

Especially Obama, your little group of racists can't help but attack the black man who did a tremendous job with the cards he was dealt.
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone defending Republicans. No one seems to think they're worth defending.

I just see you poor benighted souls continually defending Democrats as if they're much better or indeed very different.

This is how your beloved Savior, Barack Obama, is seen by the outside world, in this case British journalists;

The US Presidential Election 2012

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principal architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I don't see anyone defending Republicans. No one seems to think they're worth defending.

I just see you poor benighted souls continually defending Democrats as if they're much better or indeed very different.

This is how your beloved Savior, Barack Obama, is seen by the outside world, in this case British journalists;

The US Presidential Election 2012

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principal architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
Click to expand...
If you honestly think politics is simplistic enough to be divided into Cartesian grid then you're even less intelligent that Id contemplated before (and the bar was pretty low).
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
If you honestly think politics is simplistic enough to be divided into Cartesian grid then you're even less intelligent that Id contemplated before (and the bar was pretty low).
Click to expand...
As with any model, it both simplifies and illuminates.

You complain but as ever you have no specific grievances.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Eh your grid is oversimplified and retarded?

I know, I should use simpler words with you.
Click to expand...
Vote for another 'Democrat' who expands the military budget, ignores Unions, helps banks and puts a pharmaceutical executive in charge of health care and see where that gets you.

You've utterly failed to address why supporting the same party will lead to different results. That's because you know your answers have no credibility.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Vote for another 'Democrat' who expands the military budget, ignores Unions, helps banks and puts a pharmaceutical executive in charge of health care and see where that gets you.

You've utterly failed to address why supporting the same party will lead to different results. That's because you know your answers have no credibility.
Click to expand...
And you getting Trump elected is totally helping the country.

When you gonna fuck off and renounce your Democrat registration and sign up to the new party to Nader the left and give Trump another win?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top