Don't let the names of sources fool you. Just look at Progressives Today.

[madfloridian]

This site was just used as a source for an anti-Bernie post. If this source is okay for Hillary supporters to post against Bernie Sanders, then there should be no more griping about what others use as sources.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/

Jim Hoft, founder and proprietor of The Gateway Pundit, brings you the new online project “Progressives Today.”

Many Americans who consider themselves left of center have an antiquated sense of today’s Democrat party. This is not their father’s Democratic party. Democrats today are controlled by, and answer to, the most radical elements of their party. Yet, with cover generously provided by the mainstream media, progressives are able to push their influence in the shadows. And they have no shame.

Progressives Today follows and publicly exposes the radical elements of the institutional left. It will be the go to resource for all elements of the progressive movement through old school investigative journalism. We will cover their conferences with undercover reporters, we will interview their leaders, we will follow their writings, teachings, social media presence. Our goal is to finally hold the left accountable for their radical opinions, their destructive policies and their dangerous anti-American agenda.

One of the goals of PT, in addition to simply exposing progressives, is to expose their views to moderates and Democrats so that a choice must be made. It is our strong belief that, Progressives Today will cause many on the left to re-evaluate their political alliances.

More about The Gateway Pundit:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+gateway+pundit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[madfloridian]

1. Goal is to "the radical elements of the institutional left."

[99th_Monkey]

2. Yes HRC fans can't have it both ways. Either extreme RW sources are a-ok or they are not. -nt-

[marym625]

3. Yeah, I saw that post and just laughed my ass off

Opening themselves up,to some pretty amazing hits on family, money and campaigns, for one.

But the miniscule amount they're talking about is unbelievable. I'm sure that wouldn't even work out to Hillary's $12 per hour minimum wage plan

Off to a Bernie event!

#Bernie2016 #FeelTheBern

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. I support Clinton. Progressives today is bullshit.

There are pieces of crap we should not throw at each other in the name of our Candidate.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Thank you for saying that I agree.

nt

[MisterP]

5. the old Yaroslavl card?

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Media Matters: Jim Hoft: progressive today... Dumbest Man on the Internet?

Jim Hoft (aka Gateway Pundit)and Progressive Today stands out as uniquely incompetent. Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension.


Indeed, in spite of the fact that Hoft embarrasses himself on a near-daily basis and has shown time and again that he is either willfully dishonest or staggeringly inept, he has managed to carve out a role as one of the most-read, most respected writers in the conservative blogosphere. And his influence extends beyond the blogs. Hoft's stories are regularly featured on Fox News' Fox Nation website, and he has been cited as a source on-air by Fox News on multiple occasions.

Hoft's ongoing position of influence in the conservative media is evidence that the entire movement is intellectually bankrupt.


SNIP.........INCLUDES ALL THE DUMB SHIT HE'S DONE AND SAID


At this point, you might be thinking, "where does Hoft come up with all of this crap?" With disturbing frequency, the answer to that question seems to be either "he saw it on Free Republic," or "someone emailed it to him and he didn't bother looking into it."

AND MORE SHIT
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927

[Truprogressive85]

7. This what Some HC suppoters are proud to use as a source

@ProgsToday Nov 27
That crying sound you hear is from lefty news producers sad the #PPShooting isn't actually a #PPShooting.

@ProgsToday Nov 25
Muslim shoots parachuting Russian pilots = defending airspace BUT Americans shoot Mexican drug dealer = PRISON TIME for border patrol!

@ProgsToday
When will #MikeBrown's parents apologize 2 #Ferguson for their #DontSnitch thug son robbing minority business owners?

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. If you can think of an absurd right-wing scandal, Hoft promoted it

An abbreviated list:

The hilarious fabrication that Obama wanted to "ban sport fishing":

The "ludicrous" report that the U.S. was "giving land back to Mexico":

The utterly false story that Michelle Obama stocked the White House library with socialist books:



much more

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927

[Truprogressive85]

10. wow

He is the same guy that faked the X ray of Officer Wilson as well

[madfloridian]

9. And then there's their twitter page.

https://twitter.com/ProgsToday

[MisterP]

23. the ADL blocked them for "Meanwhile, on the other side of the country #SyedFarook was having an

interfaith exchange in #SanBernardino"

they also said ADL demonizes Israel and has a blind eye to #MuslimSupremacy

"LIBERAL NARRATIVE FAIL: Majority of Americans See Guns As Solution, Not Problem"

"It's very common in Muslim culture for granny to live upstairs from a bomb making factory & have no idea at all."

"The SAME people who've been marching on police stations & shutting down WHOLE cities ALSO say it's wrong to march on Mosques."

"Spin whatever narrative you want @Democrats. The truth on the ground in #SanBernardino is good guys with guns saved Libs from Jihadis."

"#FarooqSaeed was "living the American dream" right up until he unleashed his Muslim nightmare on innocent Americans."

"WAKE UP LIBERAL JEWS! The #SanBernardino Jihad was a MUSLIM slaughtering a Jew because he said Islam is violent. Pogroms are coming here."

"Unhinged #BlackPrivilege woman berates Hispanic McDonalds manager"

"Pious #SanBernardino jihadi "Showed no outward signs of violence" (other than his devotion to Islam of course)"

"@HillaryClinton LOVES Australia's gun laws. So what if it leaves #LGBT unarmed against their Muslim executioners!"

"Muslims slaughter people who would dare imply that Islam is a blood soaked death cult."

to "ask all candidates today about ending gun violence" they responded "You should be so ashamed. You've disgraced American Jewish community. #Apologize"

"Women in Special Forces? More like rape victim delivery service to our enemies"

"Progressive gun control is partially responsible for every death & wound AFTER the #SanBernardino Jihadis reloaded. #SittingDucks #2A"

"Obama & #progressive rhetoric demonizing Netanyahu is to blame for #SanBernardino massacre. #BloodOnYourHands" (though the wording "Koranimals" had to wait a few Tweets later)

"#SanBernardino jihad was attack on Jew in the office. I blame vicious progressive #BDS rhetoric against Israel."

"#ObamaLied #IsisThrived #AmericansDied"

"Neighbor of #SanBernardino jihadis was suspicious but didn't say anything because what if #FarooqSaeed #Ahmed was just building clocks?!"

"Muslim Tracks Down His Wife’s Rapist, Cuts Off His Penis, Eats It"

"What a shameful day for the Reformed Jewish movement. The MUSLIMS had PIPE-BOMBS!"

"Come to think of it Muslims are VERY anti-abortion but they get a Progressive hall pass for some reason."

"I'm sick of these white male NRA Republicans and their mass shootings beca... um, Sayeed Farook? Hey, let's not vilify an entire group."

"Sliver lining to #SanBernardinoTerror...More people will become gun owners. Every time an American buys a gun the terrorists lose. #2A #NRA"

"Let me guess, "lone wolf" or "not real Islam". Probably sent over the edge by #GlobalWarming or lack of jobs."

"Were the #SanBernardino shooters desperate from California drought? Damn you #GlobalWarming!"

"The moment #Progressive gun control screwed the sitting duck victims of #SanBernardino. THEY RELOADED!"

"Another gun free zone filled with sitting ducks targeted for slaughter. When do we call @TheDemocrats a terrorist organization?"

"If only 9/11 had hit an abortion clinic!"

"VIDEO OF THE DAY!! Man gets mad at White trash welfare ho's using EBT to pay for food & cash to play the lottery"

"Has Obama called in the Feds to investigate @RahmEmanuel's police debt like he has elsewhere?"

"Paris orders Jews to cancel public Hanukkah celebrations! #IslamWins"

"Democrat endorsed & supported #BlackLiveSmatter rhetoric is to blame for #JabariDean threat to kill 16 white people at #UofChicago"

"ANOTHER dead kid in Chicago who #JesseJackson won't march for because no whitey to blame. #BlackLiveSmatter little."

"The left created a toxic environment for police & white people. Their rhetoric caused Jabari R. Dean to want to execute 16 white people."

"The real victims of the #LaquanMcDonald shooting are the cops thanks to collective punishment doled out by the radical left."

"No wonder Obama doesn't support the Kurds. They're pro-Jew! ==> Kurds hold ceremony recognizing expulsion of Jews!"

"Muslim actions have turned us off to giving a crap what turns them against us!"

and that's just this week!

but it's also against the Clinton/Obama meddling in Libya and Syria giving arms to proto-IS ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. At least they left out the Reds, Commies, Anarchists, and Hippie part.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. I think we should consider all such posts as community standards violations.

If a poster is using rightwing bullshit to attack Democrats, that shit just doesn't belong here.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. should I post all the things this dumbass pundit said about Hillary?

He has a ton of them, they must be true because Hillary supporters think what he says about Bernie is true.

Nevermind the stuff he said about Obama.... he got pages of those lies too

It never ceases to amaze me the stupidly and ignorance I see around here.

[passiveporcupine]

24. YEP, if you go looking for dirt, you are probably going to get dirty.

That's the thing about the internet...you CAN find whatever you want to back up your opinions if that is your goal. It's easy to find and easy to discredit all the opposition to your goal by just not clicking on those links.

[MaggieD]

14. How about the fact that his campaign staff admitted it?

Does that work for you? LOL!

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

Nice to see Bernie supporters find religion on right wing sources though. That pleases me, since they have been used very often against Hillary here.

[madfloridian]

17. I don't.

Many don't. Also a lot of Hillary supporters are respectful toward us.

lol all you want. It does not change the source's credibility.

Most of us don't hold contempt toward supporters of another candidate.

Some of the ridicule here will come back to bite the party in the ass.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

15. So? I've seen plenty of FOX attacks against Hillary posted breathlessly here

...by Bernie fans.

Besides... what exactly is your beef? This new astroturf organization appears to have the exact same goal you do: to purge the Democratic party of all but absolute 100% left wing purists, thereby making sure that Democrats will never win another election except in a handful of emerald blue districts.

I keep seeing all these "No More Third Way" "Che Has A Bernie T-Shirt" icons posted up around the DU, and the hate-filled bile against non-purists is piled so high and deep here that I never tell actual moderate Democrats about this place, lest they reconsider their party affiliation. So I'm really not sure why you are so angry that these Republicans are making a play for the pro-jobs strong-America wing of the Democratic party. They're doing exactly what you want.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

// I feel for these guys, as this is what I do to Republicans. But my job is easier than their is because as crazy angry as the teabaggers-of-the-left are, the actual teabaggers I talk about to try to split moderate Republicans away from their party are 100% sociopathic racists

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Teabaggers of the left? Is that like "Institutional Radicals"? Reds? Hippies?

Red bait much?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

18. Teabaggers in this case refers to he damage they inflict

...on their party. Not specific opinions. I disagree with both my Democratic national Senators on certain issues, where they are taking a position to the left of mine, but neither is particularly grating about it, and I can still support them (and do).

I'm sure you would agree that Teabaggers have caused Republicans to lose elections they otherwise would have won. Or, if you don't remember that, let me bring up the names Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle for you to google.

But yes. There absolutely are teabaggers of the left. I even once posted a top 20 list of questions for people to test themselves with about it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. So, what damage have they done to the party?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

65. You're kidding, right? Remember Nader?

..."anybody but Gore?"
..."maybe if we should let a Republican like Bush win to punish the Democrats"?

Absolutely everything Bush did can be laid at the feet of these people.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Fawke Em]

66. Nader didn't cause Gore to lose.

The Supreme Court did.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

67. Without Nader, the GOP-dominated supreme court wouldn't have been involved

So no. Nader is why we had Bush.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[arcane1]

19. How does purging all but the moderates = "all but absolute 100% left wing purists"?

Clearly you didn't read the OP.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

55. Who said anything about purging all but the moderates?

That website is set up by people trying to get moderate Democrats to leave the Democratic party, not purging to the left of them. You can't purge someone, by the way.

Clearly you are the one who didn't read the OP, or are being deliberately disingenuous.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[arcane1]

57. You did n/t

[ConservativeDemocrat]

59. You misread

To quote myself: ...purge the Democratic party of all but absolute 100% left wing purists...

Go reread it. I'm being perfectly clear.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Bluenorthwest]

21. So do you endorse their extreme Hillary bashing?

Because that's sort of what you are saying. They are merciless with her.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

56. Nope. Not at all.

For the record, I don't think bashing from twisted Republican sources is okay to do for either Bernie or Hillary supporters.

But if you're somebody who is going to scream that Hillary supporters are using a website that is trying to get moderate Democrats to leave the party, at the very least you shouldn't be someone who would really like Hillary supporters to leave the Democratic party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[MaggieD]

26. Hey, if it's okay for Bernie supporters to site right wing sources....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1

Everybody knows that!

[beam me up scottie]

36. You're the only one in this thread who cited racist right wing sources.

Why do you think you have the right to criticize anyone else for doing exactly what you did?

Hypocrisy much?

[Old Codger]

38. Please

"? I've seen plenty of FOX attacks against Hillary posted breathlessly here"



Post some links to Bernie fans posting fox links that criticize her .

Thanks

[dlwickham]

52. I'm going to steal that

teabaggers of the left; that's probably the most apt description I've seen of the bern bots

[MaggieD]

25. How about the Washington Examiner and AEI?

You seem to feel strongly about "right wing sources" even when the story turns out to be true, and admitted to by his campaign staff.

Here is one for you to go criticize directly, or start an OP about. Naturally you won't because it's okay if it smears Hillary, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1

[merrily]

28. LOL! You post from a racist ratfucking source about Bernie and defend it to the death, then try to

imply it's the duty of Bernie's supporters to defend Hillary against the Washington Examiner?

Comedy gold.

[MaggieD]

29. So what about the Times Argus?

Are you calling them a "racist ratfucking source"? Oh my. LOL!

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

[merrily]

32. Nope. I called progressivestoday.com a racist ratfucking source. But, you knew that.

[MaggieD]

33. "Racist Ratfucking Sources" okay to smear Hillary though

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1

[merrily]

34. Asked and answered at least twice before and still comedy gold. Keep trying, though! It makes you

seem consistent.

Or something.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Why are you quoting racist right wing sites here, Maggie?

[Bjorn Against]

40. Because she agrees with and supports the right wing racists obviously

Jury before you hide please read MaggieD's posts in this thread as well as multiple other threads, she clearly agrees with a teabagging right-wing racist and is promoting his smears.

[beam me up scottie]

41. After reading what they said about Obama she should have deleted the link.

She not only left it up, she's defending her actions.

A jury shouldn't hide your post for calling it out.

[Bjorn Against]

43. Exactly, MaggieD has exposed herself as a promoter of racist web site today

[beam me up scottie]

44. I wonder how much money they made from all the clicks.

She generated a lot of traffic for the racists at progressivestoday, maybe they'll send her a Christmas card.

[chervilant]

27. It seems to be getting worse.

"Some of the ridicule here will come back to bite the party in the ass."

Indeed. The Democratic Party du jour is NOT the party I knew in my youth.

[beam me up scottie]

30. That's the second time a HC supporter used that racist right wing source here.

They are so desperate to smear Bernie they'll get into bed with anything.

[CoffeeCat]

35. Brace yourselves!! Poo-flinging season has begun!

Bernie's numbers are up.

The last two Iowa polls show him within single digits of Hillary. The trajectory of the Iowa caucuses is the exact same as 2008. Hillary began the Iowa caucuses in 2008 and 2016 with an opponent who started out at 4 percent. Those opponents made gains and several weeks prior to the caucuses--it's a single-point game.

It's go time now. The Iowa caucuses are 9 weeks out. The last debate before the Iowa caucuses, is a couple of weeks away.

The poo will be flung from every direction. Lie-based poo. Poo flung from Hillary surrogates. Poo flung from fake blogs and questionable websites. Lots and lots of poo.

Hillary operating exactly as she did in 2007. Why she can't see that this is a recipe for disaster is beyond me.

It's the smell of desperation (and poo, of course) in the air.

[SoapBox]

37. Another shell-game website...and it's anything but Progressive.

It's A-typical of the bullshit and dirty politics, that people will do to get what THEY want, no matter how vile or crooked their methods might be...the end (if they win), justifies their means, in their pea brains.

Strong sunlight and publicity are a good thing.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Have you read what they say about Obama?

And look at all the people who rec'd that thread.

[Doctor_J]

42. I took the liberty of compiling some of their recent headlines

After viewing that other OP I went to that site (first and last time). and got these

GREAT: 72 Department of Homeland Security Employees WERE ON TERROR WATCH LIST

#BlackLivesMatter Protesters POUR BLOOD All Over Historical Monument (VIDEO)

Carly Fiorina Slams Obama For Calling Climate Change a National Security Threat (VIDEO)

Loony Left Wing Congressman Threatens BIRTHER LAWSUIT AGAINST TED CRUZ

THAT MANY? Only 27 Percent of Voters Think Hillary Clinton is Honest

That OP and a couple other hillarians here have jumped the shark.

[msanthrope]

45. Hmmmm...when I called you out for using George Will as a source, you

refused to delete. Why was that okay?

[madfloridian]

46. I never knew what your PM referred to. Still don't. Edited my May 2014 post to respond.

But I didn't have to change anything.

I have no idea what you mean about using George Will as a source. ?????

I remember your PM, it had a threatening tone.

Here's the link.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5004676

[msanthrope]

47. From your editing, it seems you do acknowledge that using George Will's critique

Of the Obama administration's plan to include rape and sexual assault statistics in their university standings calculation was a misstep. I think that particular Op is a perfect example of why Democrats, before critiquing Democratic politicians, ought to see who else is echoing their critiques..... George Will's column on this matter was infamous, and he and you used some of the same language to critique the President.

[madfloridian]

48. You had to go back over a year to find that. Why do you do that?

If you can find where I ever quoted George Will, let me know.

Meanwhile do your investigating of my posts....it makes you happy.

BTW my words in the edit about George Will:

The PM says that I am going to be quoted and linked to in a new post soon in regard to a column by George Will that says the new college ratings "might" include stats on rape and violence toward women. I was told whether I responded to this person or not, they were going to quote this post from May. I don't know how a non-response would be handled.

I am going to let this post speak for itself. I think the post is clear.

Yes, it is apparently now okay to try to catch someone in a "mistake", but I have been here since 2002. I have gotten more liberal, and some views have changed. But I see nothing in this post that would be changed. I have not seen the referred to post by George Will. It irks me to be told that I will be quoted whether I respond or not. Sounds a little threatening.

As you can see I did not know what post you were talking about.

Find what you can by me, post whatever you like. It's what you do.

[msanthrope]

49. Again, I think your editing of your original posts on that matter indicate that

you acknowledge that using George Will's critique of President Obama was a misstep.

You characterize yourself as "more liberal." Frankly I would not characterize your interactions with many African Americans on this board as particularly liberal.

[madfloridian]

50. "I have not seen the referred to post by George Will"

That's what I wrote. I had no idea then or now what article you referred to.

I am backing off as I see no end in sight for this.

[msanthrope]

63. Okay....that really underscores your OP, doesn't it?

Time and time again in this forum we have posters claim that they didn't know they were using the right wing source, or that what they were posting about is a right wing meme, or that the author who originated the concern they happened to be writing about is a right-wing pundit. ...

In other words they claim ignorance of the fact that they are repeating right-wing concern talking points. You seem to be claiming the same....that you were unaware of George Will's critique.

And I find that a shocking admission of ignorance. Do you not Google to see where your critique originates from, or do take at face value what is posted on blogs? I think it does DU a serious disservice, and frankly, it's why HRC supporters on this site are singularly unimpressed with the anti-Hillary rhetoric.

As for you, being ignorant of one of George Will's most controversial and frankly disgustingly anti-feminist columns regarding the same issue you're writing on is journalistically inexcusable. That you did not realize you were parroting Mr. Will? I am at a loss.

I understand you backing off....I would, too, lest we begin discussion of just how liberal it is to reprint material from a troll banned by admin for racism.

[leveymg]

51. In other words, McCarthyism Today. Clintonism.

More purge the Left crap. How original.

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. Neither side should be using right wiing talking points and sources to attack our candidates. nt

[MADem]

54. Kind of stupid on the part of those wingnuts, since "progressive" is not a synonym for "liberal"

though some people think it is.

It's also not a synonym for "anti-war" though some people think it is.

Those Progressive Republicans, in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt, are organizing.....

http://progressiverepublicans.org/

[TheBlackAdder]

58. Slightly incorrect. TR, Hoover and Loncoln, were progressives, who would be Democrats today.

.


Teddy Roosevelt's New nationalism speech at Osawatomie, and President Obama's speech 100 years later were drawn on the same progressive spirit, claiming that a New Nationalism is required in this country. They are progressives, which later changed from classical liberalism to modern liberalism. Claiming that they are Republican is like claiming that Abraham Lincoln is Republican--perhaps in their day, the party that they once stood for, but during the idealogical political realignment of the 1960's, the parties core values switched.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/06/archives-president-teddy-roosevelts-new-nationalism-speech
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/remarks-president-economy-osawatomie-kansas


It is just how Republicans love to tout that Lincoln was a Republican and that Democrats hated blacks, except for all of the stuff he did that was liberal. Very few Republicans take ownership of FDR (TR's fifth cousin), and when confronted with TR's Osawatomie speech, reject him as well. The fastest way to smack down a conservative, when they bring up these points, is to see where their party and they align with those very actions.

If you read TR's Osawatomie speech, hit a conservative over the head with it. TR played to the Kansas audience, using literary devices to show commonality with the crowd. He quotes Lincoln's views on capitalists and laborers (they fly in the face of New Republicans), then he jumps into many of the views held by modern liberals: Equal Opportunity, Equality of Outcome, Perversion of the Specially Privileged and unearned wealth, Wealth begets Political Power, Everyone gets a Square Deal. He shifts to the removal of Special Interests in Politics, the Control of Mighty Corporations, Financial Transparency, Removal of Corporate Control from Politics with laws to prohibit influence, Government Supervision of Corporate Capitalization, Limited Monopolies, the Federal Bureau of Corporations, Recall & Referendum, Interstate Commerce Commission, Control of Interstate Businesses, esp. Railways, Export Tariff Commission removed from political pressure, change the conditions on the way the wealthy accumulate power that is not for the General Welfare (Permit when it benefits the community). Money should be fairly earned and not by gambling in stocks, Investor's Financial System, a strong military for home protection and each Nation work as International Police, Strong Conservation, support Farmers, Regulate the terms of Labor, Wages that are sufficient and allow workers community input, Worker's Compensation, regulation of of Women and Child Labor, Job training and education, Protect the Poor against the Wealthy as much as the Wealthy against the Poor. A National Government for the whole of the people, a New Nationalism - rethinking the Constitution as the new era's Social Economic Situation dictates it--since the country has changed so much since 1776. Would a Republican think that the Constitution should be rewritten today, since the old version is obsolete?

After that speech, TR gave the "Confessions of Faith" speech as the country is facing a really desperate struggle. Regulation, the changes to elections, control of trusts, etc. This is a follow-up to the Osawatomie speech, and both are things that the New Conservatives abhor.


So, while technically TR, Lincoln, and even Herbert Hoover (public works, tax increases, tariffs, etc.) were Republicans in the day, their views and actions were strictly progressive and liberal. They would not be allowed in the Republican party of the 21st century.


.

[MADem]

60. TR shot a man on San Juan Hill just to watch him die.

I don't know that he'd be a Democrat today.

He also slaughtered an obscene number of animals.

He was an unusual fellow, with his Big Stick. No saint, though.

Not all Republicans are conservatives, either.

Meghan McCain is one of those "progressive Republicans." She's got lots of young friends who buy into that same package.

There's a paradigm shift afoot, make no mistake.

[TheBlackAdder]

61. Progressive Republicans are like Log Cabin Republicans, will never amount to any viable bloc.

.


I don't recall the pleasure of watching a man be shot for the sake of dying in the Rough Riders. But, TR devalued life when in battle, including his own.

He was also an avid hunter, and proponent of conservation. The times were different, again and cannot be judged with today's standards. Back then, wildlife was in abundance, God's Grandeur was the prevalent poem of the day, giving right to man's dominion over animals and the natural replenishment of stock.

As far as Meghan McCain, she's going nowhere. Besides watching and listening to her fractured thoughts, there will be no paradigm shift of the party. It is already on a negative trajectory and dissension is marginalized. I'm a continuing ed poli-sci student, at university several times a week. There is no progressivism in the young Republicans, mostly Paul Ryan and Rand Paul types.


.

[MADem]

62. Well, it was a while back that I noted that there existed

a subset of Republicans who were "environmentally aware" and I was dismissed, too. Right here on (old) DU, too! The "Crunchy Cons" were and are a 'thing' in the GOP. They can fool ya, too--until you start asking questions.

Everyone thinks, when it comes to the GOP, that they're going to curl up and die. I don't. I think they are going to tack and adapt. No one gives up power that easily.

We'll see. For a "dying party" they're not doing too badly--they've got the House AND the Senate.

[R B Garr]

64. The original article was from the Vermont Guardian

This whole epic dogpile is hilarious but typical of the double standards.

What's even more hilarious is that this whole forum juxtaposes constantly. Anything remotely positive about Hillary is immediately drowned out by Bernie threads. But God forbid there's a negative Bernie thread.

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. That explains a lot!

No wonder that was the source used in that thread. HRH supporters aren't very fond if TRUE, AUTHENTIC Progressives.

Thanks mad!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE