I don't understand why some DU members show support for the FACTS that ...

[merrily]

318. So this is really about "some here" calling Hillary a Third Wayer, not the post of mine re the ACA?

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Because those are very different discussions.

Let's see. In Reply 103, , sabrina 1 wondered why Democrats did not add a public option to the ACA. In Reply 198, abakan replied to sabrina 1 "Blue Dogs and DINOs" and, in Reply 204, I pointed out, in my own way, that Third Wayers were also involved, while also pointing out that Third Wayers are similar in some ways to Blue Dogs and DINOs, but also dissimilar in other ways and therefore in their own category, not simply part of Blue Dogs and DINOs. So, to that, you replied implying that my post was comparable to being a teabagger?

By any chance, did you have some comment about the what the post you were supposedly replying to actually said and meant?

You can oppose "third wayers" without........ Setting up some standard of who is and isn't a Democrat.

Yes, thank you, I know, I have, and I do. Moreover, offhand, I don't recall posting any standard of who is and who is not a Democrat.

Did you have in mind a specific post of mine that sets up a standard for who is and who is not a Democrat? If so can you recall what it said or give me a link?

FYI, my simply using the term Third Way does not do that. There are also many subcategories of Democrats: DINO and Blue Dog, both of which were in abakan's post that I had replied to, liberal, neoliberal, (heaven help me) progressive, New Democrat, etc. Also, (and, as distinguished from New Democrat), "traditional Democrat," which is how I most like to describe my own type of Democrat.

Acknowledging that different subgroups within the party exist is reality. Using the appropriate term when relevant is not wrong and simply doing that does not that all or all of the other categories are not Democrats. If your view is otherwise we disagree.

But, before I leave that subject, are you implying that there should be no standard at all of who is and is not a Democrat, apart from perhaps having registered as a Democrat when one turned 21 or consciously switched parties? Doesn't the Democratic Party platform set up a form of standard?

Last I saw, Clinton has HUGE support in the party, but many here would dismiss her as a Third Way DINO.

I think the party has put a lot of time and effort into making sure that Hillary has as much support within the party as the party can manage to give her. However, I don't see the amount of support Hillary has relevant to whether use of "Third Wayer" is legitimate or not. That is not an issue determined by a popularity contest.

Also, calling Hillary Third Way; calling Hillary a DINO; claiming Hillary is not a Democrat; dismissing Hillary; and support for Hillary within the Party are five different discussions, not a single one of which had a thing to do with the post of mine to which you replied.

Argue for ideas, not labels and checklists.

Again, are you implying that some post of mine in which I allegedly put down discussing ideas or created some checklist?

Or is your real point in all this simply that, in your opinion, I should not call Hillary a DLCers or a Third Wayer? And, rather than begin this exchange with that, you for some reason felt a need to begin it by implying that I was behaving like a teabagger? Cause, frankly, that is what this is starting to feel like.