Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumWhy Would Any True Progressive Still Support President Obama?
Ring of Fires Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder discuss how President Obama has apparently abandoned so many progressive principles to become a pure corporatist.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)He didn't need to do that, but he did.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but, would offer, a Progressive that lives in, and understands, the messy, messy real world, might.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Obama's endorsement of DWS proves it
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and from my view, it isn't even about economic justice, so much as taking from the wealthy to put more money in the pockets of the almost wealthy, with a few sprinkles for the nowhere near wealthy.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)The death penalty, the war on drugs, limits to choice?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)But it's yours.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LonePirate
(13,420 posts)I said yesterday that Bernie was not a true progressive because of his comparatively weak stance on gun control. My comment was not warmly received.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)your first mistake was attempting to suggest that Sanders is a less than perfect progressive.
dogman
(6,073 posts)The NRA sees it as D- compared to F. Comparatively close.
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)That D- grade means he supports something the NRA supports otherwise he would have received an F like Clinton did. He certainly doesn't champion the progressive European or Australian views on gun control. There is no way Sanders is a progressive on gun issues and I say that as someone who voted for him. He is a centrist on gun issues.
dogman
(6,073 posts)My point being that D- to F is comparatively close. If he were a centrist he would have a C rating. D- is closer to F than C. They are one issue apart, that is the liability of manufacturers for weapon use beyond their control. The point being that if the manufacturers were liable for the use of weapons beyond their control, they would have to close. While that might be attractive to some, it does not represent the wishes of his constituency in Vermont.
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)I was unaware that cafeteria progressivism even existed.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Do you agree with the death penalty? do you agree with the war on drugs? do you agree with limited choice? do you agree with corporate welfare? Combine those as opposed to limited liability for gun manufacturers. It looks like they have a lot more choices in her cafeteria.
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)Do you have that number or know who decides what the number is?
dogman
(6,073 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,693 posts)That came across as a huge kick in the pants aimed at progressives. The thing is, he really didn't have to endorse her at all since it's a primary election. But he did. Why? I'm really steamed.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)katmondoo
(6,457 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Anyone that agrees with me with respect to policy approach and priorities.
But since this is primary season ... anyone the supports Bernie and/or demonizes HRC, DWS, and the DNC.
{I'll get around to further culling of those that are insufficiently in agreement with me ... after the primaries.}
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Obama doesn't and never has given a shit about us.
Google his speech at Robert Rubins Hamilton Project when he was a Senator. "Make no mistake, I AM a New Democrat".
Corporate toadies. The lot of them.
Republicans used social wedge issues to divide the country, Democrats use them to divide the party, and put on a progressive facade.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)Whoo hoo!
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,693 posts)but this move deserves bashing. Sorry if that offends you.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)has been a major DU bash-fest, with dozens of fictional scenarios concocted about what he would do that over and over again, were proven wrong.
Sorry if I don't go for that Clint Eastwood universe that too many on DU live in.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)one day.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Obama accomplished so much more than anyone expected he could under the circumstances. But are ya'll happy? No. Throw him under the bus because he didn't wave a magic Bernie wand and make everything perfect. We need more progressives in Reality Land.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The Polack MSgt
(13,188 posts)I might find a Democratic forum I could read?
TIA
zeemike
(18,998 posts)EASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I understand this is a post by a news source not a single DUer, but this has no place here.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:07 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Can we have one day without the purity council proclaiming regular Democrats to be evil Republican tools?
No? Hide this crap anyway
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I strongly disagree with this post but it is expressed civilly and is a fairly common point of view here. When I asked a couple of days ago who would have supported Bernie if he had primaried Obama in 2012, many DUers said they would have. The fact is that DU is well to the left of the Democratic party in general; Hillary's policies are similar to Obama's and she is routinely labeled "not progressive" and a "corporatist" here. If all such posts got hidden there wouldn't be much left.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you think censoring decent makes this a better place you are mistaken. It makes us look like a cult.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Here. have a Kleenex.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's OK to criticize our dear leader.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)I disagree with what the video says but I cannot believe that someone found it rude or offensive. People's predilection to alerting comments and posts makes it hard to have proper conversations in here sometimes. Some people get offended way too easily.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)21st Century Poet
(254 posts)If True Progressives wanted a more progressive nominee than Mr Garland, they should have voted for a Senate majority which is Truly Progressive. The President's job according to the constitution is to nominate someone who is acceptable to the Senate. A Democrat President and a Republican Senate majority will get you centre-left Supreme Court nominees. It's not the president's fault if True Progressives are a minority or if they are too lazy or indifferent to vote. A Senate majority which is Truly Progressive would have got you a Supreme Court nominee who is Truly Progressive. President Obama is doing his job according to the Constitution. Don't try to shift the 'blame' from the voters to the President. The President is just doing his job and his job requires his choices to reflect how the people voted. Vote for a Truly Progressive Senate next time and you will get Truly Progressive Supreme Court nominees.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)with 26% of the electorate
iandhr
(6,852 posts)These "Progressives" are stupid.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Obama is center-right; he said so himself.
Anyone who's fine with this is right-wing.