Why Don't Progressives Do This?

[innonimatu]

Sanders wasn't a member of the Dems he was trying to hijack their party.

If only the GoP did that with Trump early on heh?

There is no such thing as hijacking a party. Parties are not an aristocracy. If you can sign in, and few have any barriers to signing in, you're free to preach and convert. And if you fail to you can be shown the door, sure. Sanders wasn't. WE was allowed to preach and convert as far as he could. Of course the DNC people being the DNC people had some difficulty making converts within, what was that about a man not wanting to see something that might go against his personal interests?

You cannot both attack sanders for trying to "hijack the party", meaning in reality trying to convert the party, and attack sanders also for "not putting up" in fighting to get his policies adopted. That's incoherent of you.

 

[Zardnaar]

There is no such thing as hijacking a party. Parties are not an aristocracy. If you can sign in, and few have any barriers to signing in, you're free to preach and convert. And if you fail to you can be shown the door, sure. Sanders wasn't. WE was allowed to preach and convert as far as he could. Of course the DNC people being the DNC people had some difficulty making converts within, what was that about a man not wanting to see something that might go against his personal interests?

You cannot both attack sanders for trying to "hijack the party", meaning in reality trying to convert the party, and attack sanders also for "not putting up" in fighting to get his policies adopted. That's incoherent of you.

He fought for his policies lacked the numbers and clout.

Failed.

He can't win.

Even if he did he can't browbeat the rest of the party anyway. If he can't convince them to support him he's useless anyway.

That's assuming the Dems also have the house and senate.

An outright progressive president is still going to be constrained by their own party.

I think they will get there but it's not right here right now.

 

[Patine]

Just the usual breathtaking ignorance, the far right have enjoyed success in America historically

What we now call, "Far-Right-Wing ideals," today, by modern reckoning, have enjoyed absolute dominance in almost all the world for the vast majority of history. The ideas of Social Reform, Progressivism, and Equality, and Civil Rights are VERY, VERY new, relatively speaking in the scope of history and globally, almost everywhere. I'm not at all saying it makes these old and long-dominant views any less barbaric, backward, savage, or brutal - I'm just saying it's not at all productive to compare the historical power balances between what we now call Far-Right-Wing and Progressive ideals, today (and those labels are very recent, relatively-speaking, in history, too). Only by tackling the future, and not indicting and obsessing over the past, can be productive movement forward be made.

 

[Zardnaar]

What we now call, "Far-Right-Wing ideals," today, by modern reckoning, have enjoyed absolute dominance in almost all the world for the vast majority of history. The ideas of Social Reform, Progressivism, and Equality, and Civil Rights are VERY, VERY new, relatively speaking in the scope of history and globally, almost everywhere. I'm not at all saying it makes these old and long-dominant views any less barbaric, backward, savage, or brutal - I'm just saying it's not at all productive to compare the historical power balances between what we now call Far-Right-Wing and Progressive ideals, today (and those labels are very recent, relatively-speaking, in history, too). Only by tackling the future, and not indicting and obsessing over the past, can be productive movement forward be made.

This. It's still a new concept.

Look around at the world. What are the most progressive parts of the world (overall not on single issues).

Scandinavia, Germany, Some European countries, and the dominions.

And that's best case scenario really.

 

[Ajidica]

Corbyn would have won if he'd had the guts to campaign for brexit. Let the London bubble London go for the Liberal democrats.

You keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.
All the Referendum said was 'Should the UK be part of the EU', there was absolutely nothing on what its post-Brexit relation with the EU would look like. During the Vote Leave campaign, Farage was saying that the UK would be leaving the EU on Norway++ terms. That Brexit would take a hard-Brexit turn, and could very well lead to the breakup of the Union, was not considered. In light of all of that, and that the Brexit vote was by constitutional referendum standards quite narrow, it makes sense for Labour's position to be hold a second referendum to be clear that people wanted to go through with Brexit after actually learning what it entailed and under what terms.

You really think there wasn't horse-trading? Late night phone calls of the kind:
- Who's got the better chance of stopping Sanders?
- Oh heck it's old dim Biden because he's the only one we can sell as deserving the black vote.
- Aw. So be it, we can carry even him against Trump.

The priority was stopping Sanders. It was pretty clear.

Of course there was political horse trading, promises, and deal making. It isn't much of a conspiracy when even the least aware rent-a-gob on cable news knows it is going on. Heck, easily half of the candidates were running just so they could secure a concession of some type for dropping out.

There is no such thing as hijacking a party. Parties are not an aristocracy. If you can sign in, and few have any barriers to signing in, you're free to preach and convert. And if you fail to you can be shown the door, sure. Sanders wasn't. WE was allowed to preach and convert as far as he could. Of course the DNC people being the DNC people had some difficulty making converts within, what was that about a man not wanting to see something that might go against his personal interests?

I mean, you can hijack a party. Militant ring a bell?

 

[AmazonQueen]

There is no such thing as hijacking a party. Parties are not an aristocracy. If you can sign in, and few have any barriers to signing in, you're free to preach and convert. And if you fail to you can be shown the door, sure. Sanders wasn't. WE was allowed to preach and convert as far as he could. Of course the DNC people being the DNC people had some difficulty making converts within, what was that about a man not wanting to see something that might go against his personal interests?

You cannot both attack sanders for trying to "hijack the party", meaning in reality trying to convert the party, and attack sanders also for "not putting up" in fighting to get his policies adopted. That's incoherent of you.

Especially not a US party.
US parties are electoral machines, not mass membership parties.

 

[innonimatu]

He fought for his policies lacked the numbers and clout.

Failed.

He can't win.

Even if he did he can't browbeat the rest of the party anyway. If he can't convince them to support him he's useless anyway.

You'd make a good calvinist, really have that strong belief in predestination! He can't win. Therefore he shouldn't fight. Not should anyone keep fighting. They're predestined to lose. And even if they won they would lose.
It's not a war you know, it's politics. In politics you keep fighting and losing until some day you win. Conditions change, and fighting is not deadly. Without fighting of course one can't win, can't do the slow work or convincing people, and the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.

 

[Zardnaar]

You'd make a good calvinist, really have that strong belief in predestination! He can't win. Therefore he shouldn't fight. Not should anyone keep fighting. They're predestined to lose. And even if they won they would lose.
It's not a war you know, it's politics. In politics you keep fighting and losing until some day you win. Conditions change, and fighting is not deadly. Without fighting of course one can't win, can't do the slow work or convincing people, and the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.

There's a way to fight better and a way to lose.

 

[amadeus]

I’d say the best way is to decouple the “progressive” movement, or label, from the labor unionism types, industrial workers and low-income service employees.

Polarizing wedge issues like transgender bathrooms (of which I don’t really care about) or defunding the police, all of these are support-killers among too large a segment of the population that could otherwise be convinced of a more left-of-center agenda.

I don’t know if this is the same line of thinking as @Zardnaar and if it is not, I apologize for the incorrect inference.

Trampling on these people as Bible-and-gun-toting bumpkins too stupid for their own good isn’t a viable strategy in today’s demographics.

The Joe Biden light touch approach, an anathema to the Maoistic all-or-nothing rigidity, accomplishes more of their goals than demanding total submission.

 

[H4run]

They do exist, but only in a very small fraction that they ascribe to the anti-white rhetoric. What the Anti-SJW community and the Alt right do would only focus on them and make them a highlight of the thousands of “SJW Cringe Video” compilations on YouTube and other video sharing platforms. It may be cheap, but it’s effective in making normal people (like I was once was) into thinking progressives are ravenous woke mobs filled with pinked or blue haired SJW out to demonize and scapegoat you because your white and are after your video games and entertainment.


Counting down the hours and minutes before Patine pops in.

You said it's happening, however I don't see it happening, it's a self victimization that's used as what aboutism tactic whenever an issue that related to racism toward people of color or immigrant were brought up. The great example is the quoted text below:

must stand up for minorities (and effectively hate white people) and support diversity;

This text actually quite mind-blowing, he concluded that standing up for minorities and supporting diversity are effectively anti-white. Those 3 variable are being put together not because they are without connection, but they are connected to each other, it's almost on the level of "American History X", pro diversity and standing up for minorities endangered or contra to the value and existence of White people.

And what consider to be white btw?

Is half Mexican white? if it's yes, how about half Black? how about quarter? or must it be pure?

What is white?

 

[Zardnaar]

I’d say the best way is to decouple the “progressive” movement, or label, from the labor unionism types, industrial workers and low-income service employees.

Polarizing wedge issues like transgender bathrooms (of which I don’t really care about) or defunding the police, all of these are support-killers among too large a segment of the population that could otherwise be convinced of a more left-of-center agenda.

I don’t know if this is the same line of thinking as @Zardnaar and if it is not, I apologize for the incorrect inference.

Trampling on these people as Bible-and-gun-toting bumpkins too stupid for their own good isn’t a viable strategy in today’s demographics.

The Joe Biden light touch approach, an anathema to the Maoistic all-or-nothing rigidity, accomplishes more of their goals than demanding total submission.

Pretty much.

Don't campaign to hard on that stuff, just pass the relevant law once you win power. Generally first year once you win power.

Bashing corporations also fairly safe and needs to be done anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

You said it's happening, however I don't see it happening, it's a self victimization that's used as what aboutism tactic whenever an issue that related to racism toward people of color or immigrant were brought up. The great example is the quoted text below:



This text actually quite mind-blowing, he concluded that standing up for minorities and supporting diversity are effectively anti-white. Those 3 variable are being put together not because they are without connection, but they are connected to each other, it's almost on the level of "American History X", pro diversity and standing up for minorities endangered or contra to the value and existence of White people.

And what consider to be white btw?

Is half Mexican white? if it's yes, how about half Black? how about quarter? or must it be pure?

What is white?

Basically physical appearance although lighter skinned Hispanics often identify as white as back home they are.

It's not like blacks get treated much better in Cuba, Brazil, Mexico etc.

Lighter skin tones generally an advantage similar to India I suppose.

 

[H4run]

Basically physical appearance although lighter skinned Hispanics often identify as white as back home they are.

It's not like blacks get treated much better in Cuba, Brazil, Mexico etc.

Lighter skin tones generally an advantage similar to India I suppose.

So these are among the white population?

And half Black (with white mixture) is less white than half Mexican (with white mixture)?

How about African albino, are they white?

 

[Patine]

I’d say the best way is to decouple the “progressive” movement, or label, from the labor unionism types, industrial workers and low-income service employees.

Polarizing wedge issues like transgender bathrooms (of which I don’t really care about) or defunding the police, all of these are support-killers among too large a segment of the population that could otherwise be convinced of a more left-of-center agenda.

I don’t know if this is the same line of thinking as @Zardnaar and if it is not, I apologize for the incorrect inference.

Trampling on these people as Bible-and-gun-toting bumpkins too stupid for their own good isn’t a viable strategy in today’s demographics.

The Joe Biden light touch approach, an anathema to the Maoistic all-or-nothing rigidity, accomplishes more of their goals than demanding total submission.

Funny thing is, in Canada, we already have separate ideologically Social Democratic and Socially Liberal/Progressive Parties (the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada, which used to, for a long time in Canadian history, be Classically Liberal), with both being considered viable contenders as parties, Federally and Provincially. But, somehow this division into two separate and distinct parties does NOT lead the Conservative Party of Canada to always and reliably win every election. Amazing how that goes.

I never know it's a known fact that progressive effectively "hate" white people. What I know it's a common cheap straw-man that the alt right love to use.

So is this mean progressive as ideology are lean to "anti-white"?

I would love to know how. Especially from someone who is able "balanced" themselves beyond the dichotomy of left and right.

The true solution is to make the goal, and push meaningfully toward it, ABSOLUTE equality, not demographic bloc thinking, which is the meat and drink of both modern Conservative and Progressive thinking and policy, in their own ways.

Yeah, they would be considered communists.

How so? That's a ridiculous statement. Do you even know what Communism means? Liberals in the '60's and '70's don't even share the same orbital plane in the Political Spectrum as Communists.

Centrists don't win either, they just surrender slowly.

EVERYONE, absolutely EVERYONE, loses in the long-term way of doing politics today by every meaningful socio-political faction. They're all such short-term thinkers, sabotaging each other, and pushing doomed and failed ideas aggressively, that no one wins, or can win, in the long-term - but we're discouraged from thinking in the long-term nowadays.

You said it's happening, however I don't see it happening, it's a self victimization that's used as what aboutism tactic whenever an issue that related to racism toward people of color or immigrant were brought up. The great example is the quoted text below:



This text actually quite mind-blowing, he concluded that standing up for minorities and supporting diversity are effectively anti-white. Those 3 variable are being put together not because they are without connection, but they are connected to each other, it's almost on the level of "American History X", pro diversity and standing up for minorities endangered or contra to the value and existence of White people.

And what consider to be white btw?

Is half Mexican white? if it's yes, how about half Black? how about quarter? or must it be pure?

What is white?

In most Sub-Saharan African nations, many Blacks suffer horrible discrimination, today - by other Blacks, based not on race, but ethnic, regional, and religious differences.

 

[Zardnaar]

So these are among the white population?

And half Black (with white mixture) is less white than half Mexican (with white mixture)?

How about African albino, are they white?

There's no set definition mostly what people self identify as and how Society accepts them.

If a half white can appear white and sounds white they can probably pass as white.

White supremists have some funny ideas such as one drop rules things like that.

Mostly its based on census data. Government asks what group you identify as generally and the official stats are based on census data.

That might vary by country.

 

[H4run]

In most Sub-Saharan African nations, many Blacks suffer horrible discrimination, today - by other Blacks, based not on race, but ethnic, regional, and religious differences.

I really expect at least something more from you in this topic Patine, I'm well enlighten in this topic so do many people here, so in my humble opinion flashing a light on a subject that is this clear is not necessary.

Pramoedya Ananta Toer said, during the colonial era our opponent was clear and determined, however today it's brown discriminating another brown.

However the things that we are focusing now is the idea of supporting immigrant and diversity are vis a vis with being "anti-white", deflecting this discussion to "the color people also oppressed each-other", intentionally or not are not a fair or even honest approach to the discussion.

 

[Ajidica]

How so? That's a ridiculous statement. Do you even know what Communism means? Liberals in the '60's and '70's don't even share the same orbital plane in the Political Spectrum as Communists.

*sigh*
Do you not bother reading a post before engaging in you five minutes of hate?
If you took a standard Great Society liberal like Humphrey or Mondale and brought him to 2020, he would almost certainly be considered a communist by large swathes of the American electorate and political establishment.

 

[Zardnaar]

I really expect at least something more from you in this topic Patine, I'm well enlighten in this topic so do many people here, so in my humble opinion flashing a light on a subject that is this clear is not necessary.

Pramoedya Ananta Toer said, during the colonial era our opponent was clear and determined, however today it's brown discriminating another brown.

However the things that we are focusing now is the idea of supporting immigrant and diversity are vis a vis with being "anti-white", deflecting this discussion to "the color people also oppressed each-other", intentionally or not are not a fair or even honest approach to the discussion.

It's not really erm black and white as such.

For example you look at Trump supporters parading around and you see latin and asian Trump supporters.

He'll there's some African American ones as well.

Those with darker skins of African descent often get looked down on pretty much everywhere.

USA sucks up the online discussion but noticed that Mexico political elite tends to be pale skinned? Cubans often see themselves as white as well in the USA.

 

[H4run]

It's not really erm black and white as such.

For example you look at Trump supporters parading around and you see latin and asian Trump supporters.

He'll there's some African American ones as well.

Those with darker skins of African descent often get looked down on pretty much everywhere.

USA sucks up the online discussion but noticed that Mexico political elite tends to be pale skinned? Cubans often see themselves as white as well in the USA.

I'm not talking about the diversity of those who join the Trump rally, I'm talking about how being pro immigrant and diversity are effectively anti white. Because if pro diversity means anti-white, perhaps I'm anti white.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not talking about the diversity of those who join the Trump rally, I'm talking about how being pro immigrant and diversity are effectively anti white. Because if pro diversity means anti-white, perhaps I'm anti white.

Beats me but there's white supremists out there I suppose who have such views.

Stupid to me but there you go some believe that.